THAT THEY MAY 
BE ONE" 

IN BEHALF OF 
THE ORGANIC UNION OF 
AMERICAN METHODISM 



CLAUDIUS B.SPENCER 



Class B X?a31 

Book , S 1 

Gop>TightK° 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSm 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR 
THE LAYMAN 



16mo, net, 11.25 



< 



THAT THEY MAY 
BE ONE" 



In Behalf of 

THE ORGANIC UNION OF 
AMERICAN METHODISM 



BY 



CLAUDIUS B. SPENCER 




THE METHODIST BOOK CONCEBN 
NEW YORK CINCINNATI 

\°V\5 



Copyright, 1915, by 
CLAUDIUS 8. SPENCER 




DEC -81915 

©CI.A414988 



CONTENTS 



chapter page 

Introduction 7 

I. "That They May Be One" 11 

II. The Plan 27 

III. The Freedom and Necessity of Dis- 

cussion 32 

IV. Union by Reorganization 38 

V. Union by Division 47 

VI. What Union by Division Involves .... 57 

VII. Reorganization, of Whom? 66 

VIII. Interlude 77 

IX. The General Conference 83 

X. An Intensive Episcopacy 91 

XI. The Supervisional Conference 102 

XII. Composition of the Annual Conference 113 

XIII. To Prevent Unconstitutional Legisla- 

tion 127 

XIV. Colored Methodists 143 

XV. The Name 157 

XVI. A Plan for Organic Union 165 



INTRODUCTION 

The hour has passed when the branches 
of the Methodist family in America (if 
they really desire organic union) will 
confine themselves to expressions of fra- 
ternal feeling merely or a desire for unifi- 
cation. The history of the present quad- 
rennium makes such a display, if the 
deliverance confines itself to that, quite 
belated if not tiresome, because there is 
now before the Methodism of this country 
a concrete plan for achieving organic 
union between at least two of its 
branches, and those, in numbers, property, 
and influence, preeminent. Discussion 
may, indeed, take the form of an argu- 
ment for organic union and an appeal for 
its consummation, but all that goes only 
part way in what is demanded from hence- 
forth of such as take in hand any real or 
satisfying contribution to the subject. 
Such expressions were in place w T hen the 
Cape May Commission met in 1876; more 
7 



8 INTRODUCTION 



or less unhappily they were in place for 
several subsequent decades. But forty 
years have passed since 1876. A new gen- 
eration, ignorant, or at least innocent, of 
the past and its scars, is on the scene ; and 
this new generation demands not only an 
argument against the waste, the sectional- 
ism, that builds altar against altar, or in 
any way indulges in unbrotherly rivalry 
and competition; the new generation de- 
mands also a way out. 

Already in foreign lands the dream of 
cooperation is realized. The issue is 
clear-cut whether Methodism cannot ex- 
hibit in this land, the home and mother- 
land of these foreign achievements, a uni- 
fication even more real, concrete, com- 
pact, and final. 

Such an endeavor in this country is 
now, as we have seen, no longer optional. 
These pages trace the story of a practical, 
deliberate, and, in a sense, official, en- 
deavor to provide a Plan for the union of 
Methodism ; which Plan has been adopted 
by one of the high contracting parties and 
now is transmitted to another of the con- 
tracting parties for definite action. The 



INTRODUCTION 



9 



Methodist Episcopal Church must return 
to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, a definitive answer to this Plan; 
an answer no longer composed of aspira- 
tions and sentiments merely, but com- 
posed of a Plan that can be taken hold of 
and inspected, a Plan no less concrete and 
substantial, as to the structure of reor- 
ganization, than that which is now placed 
in our hands. 

This little treatise, if, indeed, it is more 
than a tract, gives itself definitely to an 
inspection of the Plan sent to us by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, its 
content and implications : then it suggests 
certain modifications necessary to make 
the Plan practicable and unanimous. 

Were it proper to do so, I should count 
it a high pleasure to dedicate this little 
book individually to the members of the 
Joint Commission on Federation which 
drafted the Plan, so many of whom are 
personal friends, and for all of w r hom I 
have high esteem. 

May I be permitted to add that I will 
welcome from any source opinions and 
discussions of the positions taken in this 



10 INTRODUCTION 



book; they will be given due attention; 
and it is within the compass of possibility 
that, in essence at least, these opinions 
and discussions will be placed under the 
eye of the Churches concerned. Particu- 
larly welcome will be such observations as 
point out defects either in the analysis of 
the proposed Plan and its implications, 
or in the amended Plan which is herein 
submitted to the entire Methodism of this 
land. 

C. B. S. 

July 31, 1915. 



CHAPTER I 



"THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 
I 

First fraternity, then federation; first 
unity, then union. Not in a moment, not 
forced, rather a growth from seed to har- 
vest. Thus is illustrated that orderly and 
normal evolution which holds good in the 
psychical as well as physical world — 
"first the blade, then the ear, then the full 
grain in the ear." 

The desire is not new to see the prayer 
of the Saviour fulfilled as regards the 
members of the Methodist family in this 
hemisphere: "That they all may be one; 
as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, 
that they also may be one in us ; that the 
world may believe that thou hast sent 
me." As early as April, 1869, while the 
shadows of the Civil War still hung upon 
the nation, the Board of Bishops of the 
11 



12 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Methodist Episcopal Church appointed 
the two senior bishops, Morris and Janes, 
to bear a fraternal communication to the 
bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, at their meeting in Saint 
Louis in the ensuing month of May. It 
must have been with a feeling of the most 
solemn joy that each of these men re- 
ceived his commission. Morris was Vir- 
ginia born; he was bishop when the 
Church was bisected in 1844 ; he alone of 
the bishops then in office was still alive; 
as bishop he had taken the vote by which 
several Annual Conferences had given 
their adherence to the Church South; he 
had been bishop through the awful years 
from 1844 till 1865; and now, bent be- 
neath the weight of well-nigh four score 
years, and within a span of his release 
from this life, he was commissioned to 
bear the olive branch to the men he had 
known when the Church was one. Janes, 
though New England born, was, as we 
still hear it said by them, the gift of the 
South to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
since, on the eve of the adjournment of 
the fateful General Conference which 



"THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 13 



bisected the Church, it was their vote that 
placed him in the episcopacy. He was but 
thirty-seven then, and now, at sixty-two, 
having made full proof of his episcopal 
ministry, he would meet representatives 
of a body he had reason to regard with 
feelings deeper than mere esteem. As it 
was doubtful if the senior bishop could 
fulfill his commission, Bishop Simpson 
was added to the deputation ; the gratifi- 
cation such an errand would bring to him 
would be known of all. 

May 8, 1869, at ten o'clock, Bishops 
Janes and Simpson, having been an- 
nounced, were introduced to the College 
of Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, in Saint Louis. Several 
communications of an official nature were 
read. The first declared: 

"Reverend and Dear Brethren: At a 
meeting of the Board of Bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, held in 
Erie, Pennsylvania, in June, 1865, we 
made and published the following declara- 
tion: 

" 'That the great cause which led to the 
separation from us of both the Wesleyan 



14 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Methodists of this country and of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has 
passed away, and we trust the day is not 
far distant when there shall be but one 
organization, which shall embrace the 
whole Methodist family of the United 
States.' 

"This declaration was made in good 
faith, and shows what were then our sen- 
timents and feelings, and was deemed by 
us as the utmost we were authorized to 
say or do on the subject at that time. . . . 

"Believing as we do that, if they were 
one in both spirit and organization, much 
more could be accomplished for the inter- 
ests of humanity and for the glory of God, 
we are desirous of doing all we consist- 
ently can to promote a reunion on terms 
alike honorable to both Churches, and in 
the spirit of our divine Lord. 

"We, therefore, ask your attention to 
the Commission above referred to, and we 
express to you the opinion that should 
your approaching General Conference 
see proper to appoint a similar Commis- 
sion, they will be promptly met by our 
Commission, who, we doubt not, will be 



"THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 15 



happy to treat with them, and to report 
the result to our next General Confer- 
ence." 

After a few remarks by Bishops Janes 
and Simpson, and a brief reply by Bishop 
Paine, Bishop Janes proposed prayer. 
This was favorably responded to by 
Bishop Paine, who invited Bishops 
Wightman and Janes to lead in such 
devotions, after which the interview 
closed. 

The following response to the above 
was received by Bishop Morris, May 14 : 

"To the Bishops of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

"Reverend and Dear Brethren: It has 
afforded us pleasure to receive in person 
your respected colleagues, Bishops Janes 
and Simpson, deputed by you to confer 
with us, and we cannot forbear to express 
our regret that one of the delegation ap- 
pointed by you to us — the venerable 
Bishop Morris — was not able to be pres- 
ent. We desired to see him again face to 
face, to enjoy his society, and to renew 
to him the assurances of our affection and 



16 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

regard. Our own senior superintendent, 
Bishop Andrew, though in the city, was 
hindered by the feebleness and infirmities 
incident to age from being present at the 
reception of your colleagues and enjoy- 
ing with us the interview. 

"Your communication, together with 
that laid before us by your Commission, 
has been considered, and we entirely agree 
in your estimate of the responsibility in 
the premises resting on the chief pastors 
of the separated bodies of Methodism. 

"We would approach, dear brethren, 
the matter of your communication with 
the utmost candor and love, and so meet 
the advanced steps on your part that 
nothing shall be wanting on ours to bring 
about a better state of things, becoming 
and beneficial to us both. We deplore 
the unfortunate controversies and tem- 
pers that have prevailed, and still prevail, | 
and our earnest desire and prayer to God 
is, that they may give place, and that 
speedily, to peace. In evidence of this we 
are ready not only to respond to, but to 
go further than your communication, and 
from our point of view to suggest what 



"THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 17 



may help to remove the difficulties and 
obstacles that are in the way." 
This "response" then continued : 
"Permit us, then to say, in regard to 
'reunion/ that, in our opinion, there is 
another subject to be considered before 
that can be entertained, and necessarily 
in order to it — we mean the establishment 
of fraternal feelings and relations be- 
tween the two Churches. They must be 
one in spirit before they can be one in 
organization. Concord must be achieved 
before any real union. Heart divisions 
must be cured before corporate divisions 
can be healed." 

The response noted the fact that the 
Church South had years before sent the 
beloved Lovick Pierce to the General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church on a message of "fraternal rela- 
tions and intercourse" — a mission which 
the heat of the times rendered abortive, 
so it was not received. In the nature of 
the case it would thereafter be necessary 
that the Methodist Episcopal Church 
should take the initiative if fraternity 
were to become possible. 



18 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE 



In 1870 Bishop Janes and Dr. William 
L. Harris (afterward bishop) were ap- 
pointed a deputation to pay a fraternal 
visit to the General Conference of the 
Methodist Church, South, in Memphis, 
Tennessee. The deputation being invited 
to address the Conference, Bishop Janes 
having noted that he and his colleague 
did "not understand that power was dele- 
gated to the deputation to negotiate, or 
that it was appointed to take any definite 
action in any matter," said: "I suppose 
that it was intended that the deputation 
should ascertain what was the state of 
public sentiment [among members of the 
General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South], to learn what 
embarrassments existed to prevent a 
union, and suggest in what manner a 
union might be effected." 

He continued: "I do not think any of 
us anticipate that a perfect organic union 
can be effected at once. It cannot be done 
without prayer and without magnanimity 
and concession on both sides. . . . But 
I do believe that the prayer of Christ will 
be heard and that the time will come when 



"THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 19 



his people will be one. Anything to 
hasten that end should be done." He 
concluded: "I would do great injustice 
to my own feelings did I not express the 
fact that it affords me great pleasure to 
look upon the countenances of so many 
whom I knew many years ago." 

From that day to this, veering some- 
what as winds might blow, both of the 
Churches have been steadily coming 
nearer together. It is beyond the scope 
of this little treatise to trace the course 
they have sailed ; suffice it to say that to- 
day the Churches seem within sight of 
the common haven. 

II 

In the autumn of 1910 the Commis- 
sioners of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church who were members of the Joint 
Commission on Federation invited the 
other members of the Joint Commission 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, and from the Methodist Protestant 
Church to meet them in the city of Balti- 
more, for the purpose of considering defi- 



20 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



nitely the matter of the organic union of 
American Methodism. The members of 
the Joint Commission issuing the call 
were Bishop Earl Cranston, Bishop John 
M. Walden, and Bishop Luther B. Wil- 
son; the Rev. John Franklin Goucher, 
LL.D., the Rev. W. W. Evans, D.D., and 
President G. A. Reeder, D.D., and Messrs. 
Robert T. Miller, LL.D., Hanford Craw- 
ford, Esq. (whose father, M. D'C. Craw- 
ford, D.D., LL.D., had been chairman of 
the Methodist Episcopal Section of the 
Cape May Federation of 1876), and Hon. 
John Alanson Patten, LL.D. 

The meeting was held in Baltimore, 
November 30-December 2, 1910. A com- 
munication from the Commissioners call- 
ing the meeting was read by Bishop Cran- 
ston, which, after reviewing at length the 
weighty reasons which had moved them to 
call this meeting, said, "We hereby tender 
a brotherly invitation to the Commission- 
ers of the respective Churches to consider 
with us at this time the desirability and 
practicability of organic union." 

Much time was spent in prayer. Nor 
can there be any question of the depth of 



"THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 21 



feeling and of concord that pervaded 
every session of the meeting. 

After declaring, "We are mutually 
agreed that the Churches represented by 
us are equally apostolic in faith and pur- 
pose and have a common origin (the 
Methodist Episcopal Church organized 
1784), that they are joint heirs of the 
traditions and standards of the fathers," 
and "that our fathers settled the issues of 
the past conscientiously for themselves re- 
spectively and separated regretfully," the 
Commission appointed a Joint Committee 
of Nine, three from each Commission, to 
present, if found practicable, a plan 
which should provide "for such unifica- 
tion through reorganization of the Meth- 
odist Churches concerned, as shall insure 
unity of purpose, administration, evangel- 
istic effort, and all other functions for 
which our Methodism has stood from the 
beginning." 

The Committee of Nine met in Cin- 
cinnati in January, 1911, and, by the end 
of three days given to a prayerful study 
of the subject, had worked out "A Plan 
of Unification Through Reorganization." 



22 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

The Joint Commission met in Chat- 
tanooga May 10-12, 1911, to hear and con- 
sider the report of a Committee of Nine. 
The report was adopted without a sub- 
stantial alteration, except that by Bishop 
Cranston, providing for the uniting of all 
the colored Methodists into one of the 
"Quadrennial Conferences." 

The General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Protestant Church in May, 1912, 
approved the work of its Commission in 
agreeing to the tentative Plan of Unifi- 
cation of the Methodist Bodies in the 
United States by reorganization, but took 
no definite action on the suggestions look- 
ing to reorganization. The report to the 
General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, in its meeting 
in 1914, summarizes the record whereby 
we learn that the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church received 
the report of their Commissioners, but be- 
cause of the resolution which was adopted 
by the Commission to the effect "that at 
the close of our deliberations we empha- 
size the statement that the suggestions 
here outlined are only tentative, that in 



"THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 23 



no sense are these suggestions a plan, but 
merely the result of our explorations in 
search of a basis of union/' they seemed 
to have felt that they were not at liberty 
to take any action on the tentative plan 
of unification which the Joint Commis- 
sion had adopted ; but the General Confer- 
ence declared, "We heartily approve the 
action of our Commission on Federation 
in proposing the question of organic union 
to the Commissioners in joint session at 
Baltimore, believing that the membership 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church would 
welcome a corporate reunion of the Meth- 
odisms of America." A Commission on 
Federation was appointed "with full 
power and authority to continue negotia- 
tions and to meet with similar Commis- 
sions from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, the Methodist Protestant 
Church, and any and all other duly 
appointed Commissions from other 
Churches and branches of Methodism, or 
with each separately, concerning the 
commendable purposes of advancing or- 
ganic union, or closer federation, said 
Commission to report to the next General 



24 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Conference." The Commissioners of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, at the meet- 
ing in Washington, D. C, April 8, 1913, 
declared, "We cannot under the circum- 
stances interpret the action of the Gen- 
eral Conference as unfavorable either to 
the method followed by the Joint Com- 
mission or to any of the results obtained." 

The General Conference of the Church 
South met in 1914, in Oklahoma City. 
On the fourteenth day, Bishop E. E. Hoss 
in the chair, Report No. Eight, of the 
Committee on Church Relations, was 
taken up as the order of the day. After 
reciting briefly the incidents which w r e 
have summarized, the report gave the 
plan for organic union as unanimously 
formulated by the Joint Commission. 
But one speech was made, by Dr. F. M. 
Thomas, the fraternal messenger from the 
Church South to our General Conference 
at Minneapolis, and a member of the 
Joint Commission on Federation. He 
said: "We are approaching an age of 
unity; nations may resist, churches may 
resist ; but the tide will be too strong for 
them. Two of the spirits which signed 



"THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 25 



this document are looking down from the 
other world. A great array of heroes wiio 
have gone to their reward are looking 
down upon us to-day." He quoted from 
the venerable Bishop Alpheus W. Wilson : 
"Great as have been the achievements of 
the twentieth century, the greatest 
achievement of modern times will be the 
unification of Methodism." Also he 
quoted from James M. Buckley : "To see 
Methodism in this great nation substan- 
tially united would be worth living for 
and sacrificing for through long years." 
Dr. Thomas then moved that the Chair- 
be invited to make remarks upon this sub- 
ject. 

The chairman, Bishop Hoss, arose and 
with deep feeling gave a vivid interpreta- 
tion of the significance of the hour. He 
then called for the General Conference to 
vote. It was a most impressive moment. 
The Chair said, "If you will adopt this 
report, please rise and stand until you 
are counted." 

The entire body arose. 

Bishop Hoss: "I do not wish to have 
any mistake about this. If there is any- 



26 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



body here that is opposed to it, I want 
him to rise and stand until he is counted." 

There was a pause and silence. 

Bishop Hoss: "It gives me very great 
pleasure to say to our brethren that there 
is no dissenting vote." 

The Plan was adopted. The Plan is 
now squarely before the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church for definitive action. 



CHAPTER II 



THE PLAN 
I 

The Joint Commission meeting May 10, 
19 11 ? in Chattanooga, adopted the follow- 
ing 

Plan of Reorganization of American Methodism 

1. We suggest, as a plan of reorganization, the 
merging of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the 
Methodist Protestant Church, the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, into one Church, to be known 
as the Methodist Episcopal Church in America or 
the Methodist Church of America. 

2. We suggest that this Church shall have 
throughout common Articles of Faith, common 
conditions of membership, a common hymnal, a 
common catechism, and a common ritual. 

3. We suggest that the governing power of the 
reorganized Church shall be vested in one General 
Conference and three or four Quadrennial Con- 
ferences, both General and Quadrennial Confer- 
ences to exercise their powers under constitutional 
provisions and restrictions, the General Conference 
to have full legislative power over all matters dis- 
tinctly connectional, and the Quadrennial Confer- 
ences to have full legislative power over distinct- 

27 



28 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



ively local affairs. We suggest that the colored 
membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church* 
the Methodist Protestant Church, and such organ- 
izations of colored Methodists as may enter into 
agreement with them, may be constituted and re- 
organized as one of the Quadrennial or Jurisdic- 
tional Conferences of the proposed reorganization. 

4. We suggest that the General Conference shall 
consist of two houses, each house to be composed 
of equal numbers of ministerial and lay delegates. 
The delegates in the first house shall be appor- 
tioned equally among the Quadrennial Conferences 
and elected under equitable rules to be provided 
therefor. The ministerial delegates in the second 
house shall be elected by the ministerial members 
in the Annual Conferences, and the lay delegates 
by the laity within the Annual Conferences, under 
equitable rules to be provided therefor. Each An- 
nual Conference shall have at least one ministerial 
and one lay delegate. The larger Conferences shall 
have one additional ministerial and one additional 

lay delegate for every ministerial members of 

the Conference; also an additional ministerial and 
lay delegate where there is an excess of two 
thirds of the fixed rate of representation. All 
legislation of the General Conference shall require 
the concurrent action of the two houses. 

5. We suggest that the Quadrennial Conferences 
shall be composed of an equal number of minis- 
terial and lay delegates, to be chosen by the An- 
nual Conferences within their several jurisdic- 
tions, according to an equitable plan to be provided 
for. 

6. We suggest that the Quadrennial Confer- 
ences shall fix the boundaries of the Annual Con- 



THE PLAN 



29 



ferences within their respective jurisdictions, and 
that the Annual Conferences shall be composed of 
all traveling preachers in full connection therewith 
and one lay representative from each pastoral 
charge. 

7. We suggest that the Quadrennial Conference 
shall name the bishops from their several jurisdic- 
tions, the same to be confirmed by the first house 
of the General Conference. 

8. We suggest that neither the General Confer- 
ence nor any of the Quadrennial Conferences be 
invested with final authority to interpret the con- 
stitutionality of its own actions. 

II 

The Committee on Church Relations, in 
its report to the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
made this recommendation : 

1. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, con- 
siders the plan outlined in the suggestions that 
were adopted by the Joint Commission represent- 
ing the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist 
Protestant Church, and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, and reported to the General Con- 
ferences of their respective Churches as tentative, 
but nevertheless as containing the basic principles 
of a genuine unification of the Methodist bodies in 
the United States, and especially of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, by the method of reorganization. 

2. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, re- 



30 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

gards the unification of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, the Methodist Protestant Church, and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by the method 
of reorganization as feasible and desirable, and 
hereby declares itself in favor of the unification 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, in accordance with 
this general plan of reorganization, and in favor of 
the unification of all or any Methodist bodies who 
accept this proposed plan after it has been accepted 
by the Methodist Episcopal Church. However, we 
recommend that the colored membership of the 
various Methodist bodies be formed into an inde- 
pendent organization holding fraternal relations 
with the reorganized and united Church. 

3. The representatives of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, in the Federal Council of 
Methodism are hereby instructed and empowered 
to act as Commissioners with like Commissioners 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or with Com- 
missioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the 
Methodist Protestant Church, and other Methodist 
bodies in the United States in elaborating and per- 
fecting the tentative plan that has been proposed, 
and in carrying forward such negotiations as have 
for their purpose, and may result in, the consum- 
mation of the proposed unification in accordance 
with the basic principles enunciated in the sugges- 
tions which were adopted by the Joint Commission 
and reported to the General Conferences. Should 
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in 1916 declare itself in favor of unification 
through the proposed plan of reorganization and 
should it appoint a Commission on Unification sep- 
arate from the Federal Council of Methodism, the 



THE PLAN 



31 



representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, are hereby instructed and empowered to 
appoint a similar Commission that shall serve 
until the meeting of the next General Conference. 
The representatives of this Church in the Federal 
Council of Methodism or such Commission on Uni- 
fication as may be appointed shall report to the 
next General Conference the full details of the 
plan of unification which may be agreed upon by 
the Federal Council of Methodism or the Joint 
Commission on Unification for its consideration 
and final determination. The representatives of 
this Church are hereby instructed to say to the 
Joint Commission on Unification that the name 
preferred for the reorganization and united Church 
is the Methodist Church in America. 

It is this latter Plan that is before the 
Methodist Episcopal Church for prayer- 
ful and definite action. 



CHAPTER III 



THE FREEDOM AND NECESSITY 
OF DISCUSSION 

I 

It is of the highest importance that at 
this point the question be settled as to 
whether it is proper to discuss this Plan 
in a book like this. Particularly is it 
seemly to ask the question, for one thing 
because of the quite thrilling manner in 
which the Plan was adopted by the Gen- 
eral Conference of our great sister com- 
munion. Some among us doubt the pro- 
priety of any discussion. Rather, the 
document should be referred to the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1916, and by it to a 
committee or commission to carefully 
work out before it becomes a matter of 
public scrutiny. This doubt will be re- 
moved if attention is given to a few con- 
siderations as to the binding character of 
32 



FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION 33 



the proposed Plan. In the first place, we 
must inquire whether the members of the 
Joint Commission, though voting unan- 
imously in favor, are committed to it, so 
that it must not only have their official 
support as it comes to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, and as it now 
comes to us. 

Bishop Cranston has settled this point. 
In an article written for the Central 
Christian Advocate and other Church 
papers, among other things he says : 

The Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
and the Protestant Methodist Church met in joint 
session at Chattanooga, May 10-12, 1911, to receive 
the report of a subcommittee of nine, which had 
been appointed at Baltimore in early December, 
1910. This subcommittee had been created to 
consider the whole subject of union, and to report 
at a subsequent meeting of the Joint Commission 
whether a plan of union can be devised, and if so 
to suggest such a plan. 

Before the report was taken up the following 
preliminary statement signed by Bishop Hoss, Dr. 
T. H. Lewis, and myself, was offered, and adopted 
by the Joint Commission — the specific purpose of 
this preliminary action is at once apparent: 

"Deeming it of the utmost importance that no 
misconception of the significance to be attached 
to the conclusions that may be reached through 



34 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

the discussion of the report now before us shall 
be entertained by our people or by the public, and 
regarding it as scarcely less important to the ob- 
jects of our deliberations that every commissioner 
be entirely free in the discussion of the points of 
said report, we propose the following record as 
preliminary to the consideration of the same: 

"1. This report, which deals only in outline with 
but a part of the principal questions involved in 
the matter of reunion of our Churches, is to be 
regarded simply as illustrative of the present 
status of our deliberations — which have been stead- 
ily directed to the one end of discovering first 
what is practicable, not what might be regarded 
as ideal. 

"2. This report being the first ever formulated 
for its purpose, and dealing with conditions com- 
plicated and delicate, is to be taken as suggestive 
of possible lines of procedure, and our conclusions 
thereon as the judgment of the Joint Commission 
concerning the question, 'What is at the present 
juncture apparently practicable as a basis of re- 
union or reorganization?' " 

To save repetition I call attention to the words 
italicized (by this writer) as containing the inten- 
tion of all who shared in the action that ensued. 
Then, again, at the conclusion of the discussion 
thus introduced, the following declaration (signed 
by Denny, Hoss, Cranston, Cooke, and Water- 
house) was adopted: 

After reiterating in substance the above prelim- 
inary statement, these words followed (referring 
to the "suggestions," which had been agreed upon, 
and which are now spoken of as "the plan," etc.) : 
"That we emphasize the statement that the sugges- 



FREEDOM OP DISCUSSION 35 



tions here outlined are only tentative; that in no 
sense are these suggestions a plan, but merely the 
result of our exploration in search of a basis of 
union. It has not been possible to think through 
even the questions that have come before us. Other 
questions not yet touched will need to be weighed, 
analyzed, and carefully stated." 

Finally, if any "finally" be needed after the 
above, I call attention to the last relevant clause 
in the address authorized by the Joint Commission 
to be sent out "To the Methodists of the United 
States" concerning the results thus far attained. 
These are the words: "We wish it to be distinctly 
understood that what we have done is not and does 
not pretend to be of the nature of a definite plan 
of union, but it is cast in the form of a series of 
suggestions to the General Conferences such as 
may be helpful to them in reaching final conclu- 
sions." 

II 

As to the nature of the case, whether 
the Plan should be looked upon as final, 
and therefore beyond the courtesy and 
pertinency of discussion, the Church 
South has herself officially spoken. In 
his remarks before the General Confer- 
ence at Oklahoma City and just previous 
to putting to vote the adoption of this 
proposed Plan, Bishop Hoss declared: 
"This is not final; nobody dreams it is 



36 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



final ; no one man is wise enough to frame 
a final plan of union of all Methodism. 
We should go on and after a time Al- 
mighty God will put his hand in and this 
thing will come to pass." 

The bishops of the Church South in 
their Episcopal Address to the General 
Conference at Oklahoma City, declared, 
"It is for you to determine, therefore, 
whether you will indorse what your Com- 
missioners have done, or modify it, or 
ignore it, or completely reject it." 

The language of the report itself reads : 
"The Joint Commissions representing the 
three Churches appointed a Joint Com- 
mittee of nine, three from each Commis- 
sion, to bring to the Joint Commissions, 
if found practicable, a Plan for submis- 
sion to the General Conferences and 
people of the respective Churches." 

In view of this provision, it is not an 
impertinence to offer pages similar to 
these ; it seems, rather, a duty. One of the 
greatest intellects the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church has had, now in the other 
world, wrote this writer shortly before his 
death : "Now that the General Conference 



FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION 37 



of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, has put the proposition squarely 
up to us, we shall have to look the matter 
squarely in the face and to make some 
answer. ... Discuss it, for meet it we 
must. Let us go at it deliberately and in 
such spirit as will commend us to the 
Christian world." 

On a matter of such far-reaching con- 
sequences, therefore, this little book is a 
response to a sense of duty. 



CHAPTER IV 



UNION BY REORGANIZATION 
I 

In his speech in response to the written 
statement to the members of the Joint 
Commission on Federation, read by 
Bishop Cranston in behalf of the Com- 
missioners of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, Bishop Hoss enunciated this doc- 
trine: "If a real, vital, and permanent 
union is to be effected, each separate 
Church must be ready to make some con- 
cessions, and this too not on trifling 
points but on matters of real importance. 
There must be no blinking of this fact and 
no policy of shiftiness or maneuvering for 
advantage. Those who are most eager for 
union ought to be the first to say how far 
they are willing to go to obtain it. The 
mere intimation that either one of the 
38 



UNION BY REORGANIZATION 39 



Churches should absorb the other, retain- 
ing meanwhile all of its own prime pecu- 
liarities, would be an impertinence. If 
organic union ever becomes a reality, it 
will consist not in the mere enlargement 
of any existing Church, but in the crea- 
tion of a new Church" He added : "The 
Southern Methodists do not wish to ab- 
sorb any body, and they are not going to 
be absorbed. Many of us, at any rate, 
before submitting to that will camp out 
under God's kindly stars/' 

The Plan proposed interprets exactly 
this deliverance by Bishop Hoss ; we are 
presented with a plan for achieving or- 
ganic union by reorganizing existing de- 
nominations, or, as Bishop Hoss phrases 
it, it is a plan for "the creation of a new 
Church." Every Methodist, North and 
South, must, therefore, be prepared to 
view the Church to which he is attached 
shattered at many points, that out of the 
debris may be constructed the new 
Church. Nothing short of that blunt, 
final understanding of the situation will 
enable any person to understand the Plan 
now in store for American Methodism. 



40 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE 



II 

What, then, is the proposed Plan offi- 
cially submitted by the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South? It may be sum- 
marized as follows : 

It proposes : 

1. A division of the United States into 
Quadrennial Conferences which shall, 
under constitutional guarantees and re- 
strictions, possess full and sole jurisdic- 
tion over all possible questions distinc- 
tive to their area. 

2. The creation of a General Conference 
to consist of tw^o houses, a first and a 
second house, the members of the first 
house to be chosen in equal numbers by 
the respective Quadrennial Conferences 
and composed of equal numbers of min- 
isters and laymen ; the second house to be 
chosen by the Annual Conferences and 
the Lay Electoral Conferences, according 
to membership, and after the manner the 
General Conferences are chosen at the 
present time. This General Conference 
shall have jurisdiction only on such 
matters as are distinctly connectional. 



UNION BY REORGANIZATION 41 



3. The colored members of the present 
denominations shall be "formed into an 
independent organization holding frater- 
nal relations with the reorganized 
Church." 

.4. Laymen shall be members of the An- 
nual Conferences. 

5. The Sectional Quadrennial Confer- 
ences shall name their own bishops. 

6. "Neither the General nor any of the 
Quadrennial Conferences shall be in- 
vested with final authority to interpret 
the constitutionality of its own actions." 

7. The name of the Church is changed : 
"The representatives of this Church (the 
Church South) are hereby instructed to 
say to the Joint Commission on Unifica- 
tion that the name proposed for the united 
Church is the Methodist Church in Amer- 
ica." 

Ill 

We may point out in this place the last 
of these seven propositions. It discloses 
the fact that the first thing to go down, 
so far as the Methodist Episcopal 



42 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Church is concerned in this reorganiza- 
tion, is its name. This is the name chosen 
for the Methodist movement in this hemi- 
sphere, the banner under which Asbury 
and McKendree led the hosts up and down 
the Atlantic coast, and over the moun- 
tain ranges into the West, the banner 
under which Soule and Capers and Mc- 
Tyeire and Wilson, as well as Ames and 
Simpson and Bowman and Warren, led 
the host. Bishop Tigert held that the 
Church South was as entitled to the name 
Methodist Episcopal Church as we are; 
and, passing over the soundness of the 
argument, he held that the courts might 
be invoked to compel us to place some 
such designation as "North" after our 
name, as the Church South put "South" 
after her name. The name has persisted 
ever since the Christmas Conference in 
Lovely Lane, Baltimore, in 1784, started 
out under its banner. And inasmuch as 
the new order of things is to perpetuate 
"bishops," there can be nothing in the 
present or future status of Methodism 
which will make the words "Methodist 
Episcopal" incongruous. 



UNION BY REORGANIZATION 43 



It is, moreover, worth while mention- 
ing that while there is not the slightest 
question that the abandonment of our his- 
toric banner, and the folding it away 
among relics in the museum, would cause 
a deep wrench among some of our people, 
a wrench that could not be poulticed into 
acquiescence, no such wrench seems pos- 
sible to the Church South, at least in pre- 
dominating numbers. For thirty years 
there has been a desire on the part of the 
Church South to change its name. Many 
in that body have wished to get rid of the 
word "South." 

In 1886 the General Conference ordered 
the bishops to submit to the vote of the 
Conferences the proposition to change the 
name of the Church to "The Methodist 
Church in America." It has been a live 
issue from that day to this. During the 
past ten years it has been a very insistent 
question. The Birmingham General 
Conference in 1906 had it to the fore. 
The General Conference at Asheville in 
1910 had a somewhat bitter discussion, 
the bishops finally interposing their veto, 
thereby causing a considerable amount of 



44 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



ill feeling. Finally Dr. Horace M. Du 
Bose introduced a motion directing the 
bishops to submit to the Church, accord- 
ing to the constitutional process, an 
amendment changing the name of the 
Church. The change was not approved. 
The incident does, however, show that 
the subject is not a stranger in that body, 
whereas we have never read of a single 
instance wherein a member of our body 
has proposed it — except, indeed, it was 
assented to by our commissioners in 1911 
— a matter that under the circumstances, 
requires no explanation. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, if we 
sense the rank and file and understand it, 
would be reluctant to haul down that 
banner which for one hundred and thirty 
years has floated in the heavens, in many 
lands, which has floated also above the 
Southern Church since '44; which flies 
full from the mast to-day over the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
African Methodist Episcopal Church, 
African Zion Methodist Episcopal 
Church, 



UNION BY REORGANIZATION 45 



British Methodist Episcopal Church, 
Free Will Methodist Episcopal Church, 
Colored Methodist Episcopal Church. 
There are, to be sure, some colored 
bodies which omit the word "Episcopal," 
but their combined membership reaches 
scarcely eleven thousand. There are the 
Free Methodists and the Protestant Meth- 
odists, but the former have bishops. 

It seems to us that this hauling down of 
the historic name of the greatest Protes- 
tant force in this hemisphere — a banner 
that gloriously flies above seven million 
and more loyal and aggressive Christians, 
a name which had the sanction of John 
Wesley, a name known from Hammerfest, 
the northernmost town on the planet, to 
Punta Arenas, the southernmost town, 
and from the river to the ends of the earth 
— should be explained by reasons that are 
very, very plain, and very, very conclu- 
sive. 

It may be necessary, in order to achieve 
organic union, to make this alteration; 
this question is discussed in a later 
chapter. If it is a necessity, no one will 
intervene an appeal albeit a multitude 



46 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



that no man can number will feel a pang 
as that noble and mighty ensign comes 
down to fly from the mast no more. 

On the other hand, we can but feel that 
the old historic name w T ould, if given to 
a united Methodism, bring tears and hal- 
lelujahs to the heroes who are henceforth 
to march forward side by side. 



CHAPTER V 



UNION BY DIVISION 
I 

The proposed Plan provides for a tri- 
section of the territory of the United 
States. It provides for three white Sub- 
General Conferences, called Quadren- 
nial Conferences, each "Quadrennial Con- 
ference to have full legislative power" 
over matters belonging to its area. 

Stripped of all ambiguity, what does 
this mean? It means, first of all, the tri- 
section of the United States into three 
independent areas. Upon what basis will 
this trisection be made? Primarily on 
the political lines existing when the 
Church was divided in 1844. There has 
been some talk among the uninformed 
that the trisection of the United States 
would be by lines running North and 
South from the Canadian boundary line 
47 



48 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



to the Gulf and the Rio Grande, but no 
member of the Church South has been so 
forgetful as to make or harbor such a 
suggestion. That is not the form behind 
the veil. 

II 

The proposition to unite American 
Methodism by cutting it up into quite in- 
dependent areas and jurisdictions, into 
three Semi-General Conferences called by 
the Joint Commission "Quadrennial Con- 
ferences/' is a very ancient theory of the 
Church South. It must be at least forty 
years since Nathan Scarritt began advo- 
cating it as the solution of the prob- 
lem of organic union. He taught that 
there should be three General Confer- 
ences, one North, one South, and one 
West, and that the Negroes should be 
solidified into a fourth. The Joint Com- 
mission proceeded on the lines Nathan 
Scarritt laid down. Significantly the 
General Conference of the Church South 
erased the fourth Quadrennial Confer- 
ence. Now we know definitely what is 



UNION BY DIVISION 49 



in store. If any one thinks differently, 
let him ask any ten leaders of the General 
Conference which unanimously imposed 
that proposition ; let him poll the Confer- 
ences in South Carolina or Louisiana, for 
example. He will return with consider- 
able food for thought — and caution. 

The phrase, "three Quadrennial Con- 
ferences," means, and only means, the 
division of American Methodism into 
three areas, one of which shall be prac- 
tically the area of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, on the fifteenth day 
of May, 1845; a second which shall be 
practically what Bishop McTyeire graph- 
ically defined as "the portion of the 
[Methodist Episcopal] Church not 
included in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South in 1844," and, a third, 
which shall include the area in the West 
which has been entered since 1844. It is 
a waste of time to chatter about any other 
lines of "division." 

Ill 

In all matters of legislation, the section 



50 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



now known as the Church South will be 
as independent of the section now known 
as the Methodist Episcopal Church, as it 
is to-day. Nothing voted in that Sub- 
General Conference, meeting every four 
years, will be subject to review by any 
other body, no matter w^hat may be the 
nature of that legislation; and the same, 
of course, will be true as regards the ac- 
tion taken by the Sub-General Conference 
representing the area in which what is 
now the Methodist Episcopal Church will 
then find its circumscribed habitation. 
This is plainly stated in the bond. 

The basis of carving the area of Amer- 
ican Methodism, therefore, if it comes to 
pass, will be along lines that keep the 
North in the North, the South in the 
South, and hold the common ground of 
the Far West, where without let or hin- 
drance, both bodies are now building altar 
against altar in concord and good feeling, 
a third by itself. The dream of Nathan 
Scarritt will be attained. 

Accepting, then, the classification there 
laid down, Methodism when united by re- 
organization will find herself actually 



UNION BY DIVISION 51 



attaining the status in which American 
Methodism was by one section supposed to 
be after the adjournment of the General 
Conference in New York in 1844, and par- 
ticularly after the "general convention" 
in Louisvile, Kentucky, in May of the fol- 
lowing year. Thereafter there can be 
between the Sub-General Conferences 
("Quadrennial Conferences") of the 
united Church, in the North and the 
South, practically, at most, only the beau- 
tiful sentiments of "Christian regards 
and fraternal salutations" such as were 
brought from the Church South to our 
General Conference in Pittsburgh in 1848. 
What more can there be? As for lifting 
a voice in the affairs of the other, either 
north or south of the median parallel of 
latitude, each body, the Church in the 
North and the Church in the South, will 
be as dumb as it is to-day. This is im- 
bedded in the bond; it is a "basic prin- 
ciple," to use a phrase of Bishop Hoss, in 
the Plan sent to us from the Church 
South. In reality will it not be two 
Churches masquerading as one? 

There will be a Methodist Episcopal 



52 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Church, South, and a Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, North, with another Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in the Far West, 
each electing its own bishops and having 
sole jurisdiction on all matters pertaining 
to the respective areas ; with "uber alles," 
over all, a General Conference of two 
houses to confer on what is left. 

IV 

Looking backward to the date of the 
bisection of the Church in 1844, the Gen- 
eral Minutes of that year show there w T ere 
nineteen Annual Conferences in the 
North and fourteen in the South. How 
will it stand when we have got "union by 
reorganization"? We define the areas 
first in States. Let it be said at once that 
the classification is somewiiat superficial, 
particularly so far as a third quadrennial 
area is concerned. The people would 
have to be consulted, beyond question, but 
if the "union by reorganization" proceeds 
to a hard conclusion, w r e do not see how 
it can be much different from the classifi- 
cation we here set down. And be kind 



UNION BY DIVISION 53 



enough to bear in mind that this is no 
work of preference or prejudice on our 
part, but a consideration of the hard, cold 
facts as they will come out when we have 
got "union by reorganization." There 
may be States which will recoil from this 
classification and refuse it. But none the 
less the assignment is implied in any 
working out of this concrete principle of 
"union by division" or, to use the techni- 
cal phraseology, "union by reorganiza- 
tion," if that reorganization is to be a fact. 

We present the States, therefore, and 
their area : 

First Quadrennial Conference 



States Sq. Miles 

Maine 33,040 

New Hampshire 9,305 

Vermont 9,565 

Massachusetts 8,315 

Connecticut 4,990 

Rhode Island 1,250 

New York 49,170 

New Jersey 7,815 

Delaware 2,050 

Pennsylvania 45,215 

West Virginia 24,780 

Ohio 41,060 

Indiana 36,350 

Illinois 56,650 



54 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



States Sq. Miles 

Kansas 82,080 

Michigan 58,915 

Wisconsin 56,040 

Iowa 56,025 

Minnesota 83,365 



19 665,980 

Second Quadrennial Conference 

Maryland 12,210 

Virginia 42,450 

North Carolina 52,250 

South Carolina 30,570 

Georgia 59,475 

Florida 58,680 

Alabama 52,250 

Mississippi 46,810 

Louisiana 48,720 

Arkansas 53,850 

Missouri 69,415 

Tennessee 42,050 

Kentucky 40,400 

Oklahoma 70,057 

Texas 265,780 

Porto Rico 3,606 



16 948,573 

Third Quadrennial Conference 

Colorado 103,925 

New Mexico 122,580 

Arizona 113,020 

Nevada 110,700 

California 158,360 



UNION BY DIVISION 55 

States Sq. Miles 

Utah 84,970 

Washington 69,180 

Oregon 96,030 

Idaho 84,800 

Montana 146,080 

North Dakota 70,795 

South Dakota 77,650 

Wyoming 97,890 

Nebraska 77,510 

Alaska 590,884 

Hawaii 6,449 



16 2,010,823 



We do not say this alignment is final. 
It will be found, however, we confidently 
believe, that anyone who makes a change 
in this "suggested" alignment will have 
trouble on his hands to make the Plan 
workable in actual practice. 

We have got to have some such work- 
ing basis, if American Methodism adopts 
this Plan. It is our conviction that an 
attack on this classification will prove in 
fact an attack on THE PLAN. And that 
is precisely why we submit the lists; let 
us take a square look and see where we 
are going to come out. 

Now, in this we make as yet no criti- 



56 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



cism of the proposition ; and our brethren 
of the South will so understand. We are 
simply endeavoring to clear out the fog 
which envelops some even among us who 
have in their lips and pens the crystalliz- 
ing of public opinion. There are among 
us some who are really and sincerely 
advocating organic union on the basis 
of a longitudinal trisection, putting it 
on the ground that the "reorganized" 
Church will be divided into three sections 
by meridians running from Ontario and 
Saskatchewan to the Gulf and the Rio 
Grande. Such talk will make the Philis- 
tine and uncircumcised put his tongue in 
his cheek ; it will make the knowing smile. 

In a matter of this gravity it is not wise 
to make a leap in the dark. 



CHAPTER VI 



WHAT UNION BY DIVISION 
INVOLVES 

I 

Proceeding, then, on this disclosure of 
the content of the Plan for organic union, 
a union by division, it will be interesting 
to note particularly what will by this divi- 
sion fall from the hands of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, into our lap; 
and what, on the other hand, will fall 
from our hands into the lap of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, in each 
instance all former claims of every kind 
being relinquished. 

table I 

Methodist Episcopal Chubch, South, in the 
North 



Property 

States Members Churches Valuation 

Iowa 334 1 $4,000 

Nebraska 176 1 4,000 

Kansas 2,009 13 39,000 

Illinois 7,168 102 170,800 

Indiana 378 lest 10,000 



10,065 118 $227,800 

57 



58 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



The Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, has one Conference, the Illinois, in 
the North. We are acquainted with 
some of its ministers and laymen and 
prize their friendship. But the specific 
gravity of the Illinois Conference, South, 
which was organized in 1866, and, there- 
fore, has been operating in Illinois for 
almost fifty years, may be seen when it is 
noted that it has but 102 churches esti- 
mated in their general minutes for 1914, 
at an average of less than f 1,700 each, 
and having after nearly fifty years a total 
membership of only 7,168; whereas in 
that same State the Methodist Episcopal 
Church has 1,901 churches with a mem- 
bership of 273,210, and Church property 
conservatively set down at $18,000,000, 
not to speak of its schools, which have a 
property of more than $10,000,000. 

The rest of the Church South in the 
North includes one church in Iowa, one in 
Indiana, one in Nebraska, and thirteen 
in Kansas; there is also one in Pennsyl- 
vania. 

When "union by reorganization" is 
effected, therefore, there will come into 



WHAT UNION INVOLVES 59 



the lap of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, North, 118 churches valued at 
something less than f 2,000 each (a total 
of |237 ? 800), and having 10,065 members, 
of which it is likely a goodly fraction 
may join us. 

But how will this sacrifice on the part 
of the Church South be compensated? 
The following table will give some light : 

TABLE II 

Methodist Episcopal Church in the South 
(White Conferences) 

Property 

Conferences Members Churches Valuation 

Pall Conferences: 





. 11,809 


83 


$203,330 


Blue-Ridge-Atlantic . . 


.11,223 


197 


235,633 


Central Tennessee . . . 


. 8,339 


124 


141,491 




, 3,464 


71 


80,613 


Gulf 


. 5,756 


85 


262,757 




. 41,013 


458 


1,366,340 




. 23,933 


306 


827,335 




. 33,398 


326 


1,536,215 




. 39,336 


316 


1,648,720 


Saint Louis German . 


. 9,652 


108 


786,795 


pring Conferences: 










. 6,459 


83 


187,750 




. 60,991 


450 


5,411,820 




6,667 


91 


202,895 


Saint Johns River. . . 


. 2,185 


35 


533,100 



60 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Property 

Conferences Members Churches Valuation 

Spring Conferences: 

Saint Louis 41,967 353 3,353,250 

South Florida Mission . 1,533 18 32,850 

307,725 3,104 $16,810,894 
Southern German 3,906 53 213,950 

311,631 3,157 $17,024,844 

Total White 311,631 3,157 17,024,844 

Total Colored 319,425 3,193 7,203,343 

631,056 6,350 $24,228,187 

The table reveals the fact that there 
would fall automatically into the lap of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church South 
seventeen million dollars' worth of 
churches and parsonages, and 311,631 
members, to whom the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, as it is now known, would 
bid a long farewell. The Church that 
had known them, will, save as in the uber 
alles. the over all, Conference delegates 
may meet, know them no more forever. 

So far as property outside the churches 
and parsonages is concerned, we would 
turn over to them also twelve educational 
institutions having a valuation of more 
than two million dollars. 



WHAT UNION INVOLVES 61 

These are among the first fruits of 
"union by reorganization." 

II 

When we turn our attention to the 
Western Quadrennial area proposed by 
the Plan, we find figures scarcely less 
interesting : 

TABLE III 

Methodist Episcopal Church in the Far West, 
Mountains and Coast 



Property 

Conferences Members Churches Valuation 





.. 33,307 


198 


$1,917,200 




. . 21,086 


214 


1,204,871 




8,994 


86 


532,300 




, . 5,969 


66 


547,000 




. . 4,371 


67 


290,845 




, 3,419 


69 


309,850 




, 22,255 


194 


1,336,930 


Pacific German 


1,624 


28 


164,240 




. . 22,123 


203 


1,553,712 


Southern California . . 


.. 51,565 


266 


4,131,965 




. . 26,570 


239 


3,015,376 




. . 1,361 


20 


422,500 




202,644 


1650 


$15,426,789 



In the same area the figures of the 
Church South show her comparative con- 



62 "THAT THEY WAY BE ONE" 

tribution to the new body. The Church 
South has long been in that common 
area. She organized the Columbia Con- 
ference in 1865; Los Angeles, 1869; 
Pacific, 1850; Denver, 1873, four years 
before Colorado came into the Union; 
Montana, 1877; New Mexico, 1889; East 
Columbia, 1889. But the success of the 
Church South in this Northern area may 
be judged when the foregoing table, for 
the identical area, is compared with the 
following : 

TABLE IV 

Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in the Far 
West, Mountains and Coast 



Property 

Conferences Members Churches Valuation 

Columbia 2,010 28 $223,400 

Denver 1,869 17 154,500 

East Columbia 2,142 30 97,600 

Los Angeles 4,748 40 681,069 

Montana 1,304 21 143,870 

New Mexico 7,251 53 385,235 

Pacific 8,585 89 873,650 



27,909 278 $2,559,324 
III 

Let us then summarize the foregoing 
tables, it will be then discerned what 



WHAT UNION INVOLVES 63 



will be the investment of each denomina- 
tion in the trisected body. There will 
pass absolutely out, not only of the con- 
trol, but under all the circumstances, 
also, even of the direct influence of what 
has been and now is the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, 631,056 members in the 
Southern "quadrennial jurisdiction," 
carrying with them 6,330 churches, 
worth, with parsonages, nearly $25,000,- 
000, while there will pass into the hands 
of what was the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, from the Southern body, 10,065 
members, with 118 churches worth $223,- 



Throwri into a table, the contributions 
made outright will be : 

TABLE V— COMPARATIVE 



800. 



Property 

Members Churches Valuation 



M. E. Church, South, to 
the North 



10,065 118 



$223,800 



M. E. Church to the 
South i 



631,056 6,350 24,246,187 



M. E. Church, South, to 
the Far West : 



27,909 



278 



2,559,324 



M. E. Church to the 
Far West ! 



202,644 1,650 15,426,789 



64 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



It is wide of the mark to think to brush 
aside these tables by some such observa- 
tion as, "Well, what of it? Are we not 
making a new Church?" That is the dis- 
traction. Does the proposed Plan pro- 
vide one new Church? On the contrary, 
it proposes three Churches. One will be 
in the Old South, one in the Old North, 
one in the Far West; each electing its 
own bishops, each invested with full and 
final legislative functions so far as great 
sections of the national domain are con- 
cerned, each completely independent of 
the other in that government and over- 
sight, and held together by a few common 
interests such as are served to-day by cer- 
tain boards, as for example, in Mexico, 
where without this variety of a union 
both Churches as they now exist already 
work together in educational matters, or 
as in China, where the printing and pub- 
lishing establishment is satisfactorily 
managed by a joint board. 

The tables do speak with eloquence be- 
cause the proposed Church is not one : It 
is three, and here not a trinity — three in 
one — but a triad, three independent per- 



WHAT UNION INVOLVES 65 



sonalities held together only by a new 
family name and by such interests as may 
be left over after the great sectional Con- 
ferences have exhausted their "full legis- 
lative power" over "all" affairs pertinent 
to their areas. And how much, when we 
stop and think closely, are we sure will 
be left over to be attended to in com- 
mon? What will the situation be in ten 
years? 

The tables, therefore, bear their elo- 
quent though doubtful testimony to the 
contribution each of the Churches now 
existing wall make to this proposed new 
creature — the number of persons, the 
number of institutions, the value of prop- 
erty that will pass forever not only out of 
the possession but beyond the influence 
of the parties historically concerned. 
The Methodist Episcopal Church will 
contribute nearly 1,000,000 members and 
nearly $40,000,000 in churches. The 
Church South will contribute 37,967 
members and $2,789,724 in churches. 

And what is the compensation? Not 
a union but a farewell. 



CHAPTER VII 



REORGANIZATION, OP WHOM? 
I 

It is more than likely that when the 
man in the pew and the average preacher 
in the pulpit catch a vision of the organic 
union of American Methodism, their 
vision is of a Church one as it was one in 
the days of the fathers, one as it was 
before it was bisected by the troubles 
of 1844, a united Church coming again 
into the historic union it had under 
Asbury and McKendree, when it swept 
across mountains and rivers and through 
forests a tidal wave of salvation, a 
vision of buried animosities, mutual con- 
ciliation, each approaching with open 
arms to greet a brother before the an- 
cient altar. "I have not prayed for 
organic union," writes a distinguished 
leader of the Church South, "except 
66 



KEORGANIZATION 67 



upon a basis of such broad Method- 
ism and fraternal confidence- as shall 
secure completely closed ranks and bring 
about historic unification." He adds: 
"It is not to be doubted, I think, 
that American Methodists of this gen- 
eration want, as far as their wish has 
taken shape, an understanding whose 
final outcome shall be union on the As- 
burian basis." Beyond question that is 
a fact. The dream is of a union that 
makes one. Even so, Lord of the High 
Priestly prayer, "That they may be one," 
come quickly! 

But is any such sentiment expressed 
in the bond before us* It cannot be too 
firmly held in mind what is the objective 
in the "New Church"; that the union 
proposed is not a reunion^ not a return to 
the ancient model of one Methodism; it 
is a use of the materials at hand in the 
wreckage of existing denominations to 
construct a "new Church." 

II 

When we examine the structure of the 



68 ".THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



proposed denomination, we find it to con- 
sist of several propositions: 

1. Quadrennial Conferences. The pro- 
posed Quadrennial Conferences certainly 
will represent substantially the geograph- 
ical boundaries at hand in 1844. This 
we have shown has been a theory — we 
might say the theory — of the Church 
South for forty years. The tables already 
printed demonstrate that this theory in- 
volves no contribution from the Church 
South; if the Church South turns over 
10,065 members, 119 churches, worth, 
with parsonages, $227,800, to the area in 
which the reorganized Methodist Epis- 
copal Church will still have a seeming 
existence ( what those words mean will be 
seen as this chapter proceeds), the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church will reciprocate 
the gift by turning over to the Church 
South 311,631 members with 3,157 
churches, worth, with parsonages, $17,- 
042,844. In the Far West our contribu- 
tions to the third body will be about ten 
to one. 

Within these boundaries will be held 
the three Conferences supreme in all 



REORGANIZATION* 69 



things under certain constitutional re- 
strictions as the General Conference we 
now know is under constitutional re- 
strictions. The program will not cost 
the Church South anything, since its 
strength is confined at the present to the 
area it will then have; possessing prac- 
tically all it now has, and it will be en- 
riched by 300,000 more white members 
than it ever had. It will cost the Church 
South nothing because it is, in fact, geo- 
graphically a local Church. It will cost 
the Methodist Episcopal Church what we 
have set down because that church is 
everywhere. We do not associate any but 
the highest motives with anything the 
Church South has done in this matter, 
and we must not be understood as hint- 
ing any criticism of those motives; none 
the less we are constrained to say that 
such a Plan, even when innocently advo- 
cated, as we believe it, generally speaking, 
to be, would seem quite effective diplo- 
macy. For the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, the Quadrennial Confer- 
ence is an expansion rather than a reor- 
ganization; for the Methodist Episcopal 



70 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Church it is union by excision and exclu- 
sion. It would seem that the theory of 
Quadrennial Conferences, upon which as 
yet we pass no opinion, might have been 
devised exclusively in the interest of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

2. A General Conference With Two 
Houses. The General Conference is to 
consist of two houses, one to be chosen as 
members are now chosen, and one to con- 
sist of members chosen equally from each 
of the three quadrennial bodies, any legis- 
lation to become a law requiring the con- 
current action of the two houses. This 
turns out to be exclusively in the inter- 
est of the Church South, because it is the 
effort to protect what our bishops have 
defined as the rights of the minority. 
Said Bishop Hoss in the initial Baltimore 
meeting of the Commission on Federation, 
in discussing the theory that "the largest 
Church going into the new organization 
would have the greatest weight and influ- 
ence, . . . but it would be natural and 
proper for the minority body simply be- 
cause they are minorities to insist in 
advance on the safeguarding of their 



REORGANIZATION 71 



reserve rights by stipulations of organic 
law." That tells the whole story. 

3. Bishops. The Plan provides that 
bishops shall be elected by the Quadren- 
nial Conferences instead of by the Gen- 
eral Conference. This immediately elim- 
inates bishops of what was the Methodist 
Episcopal Church from Missouri, Okla- 
homa — where episcopal residences have 
been established for years — to say noth- 
ing of the three other points south of the 
Ohio River, where such residences are at 
the present time established by our laws. 
The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
though she has churches in Kansas, Iowa, 
Nebraska, and Illinois, and elsewhere in 
the North, has no episcopal residence 
north of the Ohio River. The import of 
this proscription therefore is apparent. 
We make no observations here concern- 
ing the propriety of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church having no longer any epis- 
copal residence in Saint Louis and Okla- 
homa City and elsewhere caring for over 
600,000 members and more than f 24,000,- 
000 in property in the South; here the 
only matter before us is who it is that 



72 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



strips herself to bring in the new order of 
things. 

4. Episcopal Veto. The polity of the 
Church South denies the right of a Gen- 
eral Conference to pass on the constitu- 
tionality of its legislation, investing a 
veto power in the College of Bishops and 
buttressing that veto by such mandates 
that a veto can be overcome only by an 
appeal to the long and practically pro- 
hibitive constitutional process by which 
amendments are made to the organic law. 
This superiority of the bishops to the 
General Conference the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church has stoutly contested. It 
has refused to concede that bishops are 
superior to the General Conference. In 
the proposed Plan, therefore, the entire 
concession is made by the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

5. Laymen in the Annual Conference. 
The proposed Plan stipulates that lay- 
men shall be members of the Annual Con- 
ference. The Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, has that law at present; 
The Methodist Episcopal Church does not 
have it. The Church South, therefore, 



REORGANIZATION 73 



makes no change; the change is made 
wholly by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

6. The Negro. The proposed Plan ex- 
cludes the colored members from the pro- 
posed new Church. The Methodist Epis- 
copal Church has 325,000 colored mem- 
bers, organized into twenty Annual Con- 
ferences with 3,200 churches, worth |7, 
250,000. The Church South, which for 
eighty-two years had colored members, 
numbering at one time 207,776, now has 
scarcely any; she still has some, but 
the number is negligible. She has not 
one colored church building. The contri- 
bution made by the Church South in this 
matter, therefore, is zero; the contribu- 
tion made by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church is 325,000 church members, more 
than |7,000,000 in property, not includ- 
ing the chain of about twenty colleges or 
academies valued at several millions. 

Here, again, we see that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South has contributed 
nothing of her resources in this proposed 
Plan. The entire contribution is made 
by the Methodist Episcopal Church. 



74 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 
III 

We would fall very far short of our 
duty were we not to call upon our people 
to give most serious thought to the impli- 
cations of this Plan for organic union. 
The Plan may be just; it may be best. 
But it is significant that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South offers scarcely 
one real sacrifice. It is the Methodist 
Episcopal Church that is "reorganized." 
For that body it turns out to be a union 
by retreat. If we might be permitted to 
make an observation, blunt but carrying 
no sting and no disrespect, we might add 
that it only remains for the Methodist 
Episcopal Church to go one final step 
farther and beg that the name of the new 
Church be "The Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South." So far as the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and her relations to 
two thirds of the area of her Church is 
concerned, it seems to be union by annihi- 
lation. 

Gathering up, then, the alterations and 
policy of this proposed "Unification by 
Reorganization," what do we find? We 



REORGANIZATION 75 



find that the Church South makes no 
change whatever except in what is to her 
unqualified advantage. 

We find that all the "reorganization" is 
on the plate of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. According to this Plan, there 
will be organic union when the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church recedes from 
every historic difference between herself 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South; when she, by imitation, accom- 
modates her polity to that of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South. It 
will make the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, in every essential partic- 
ular, the type and standard of American 
Methodism. Fair and high, full from the 
mast, seen throughout the surface and 
civilizations of the earth, the flag of 
American Methodism will be the flag of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
not one particular changed, every con- 
tention since 1844 vindicated; and the 
flag of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
its principle of universality, its principle 
of human brotherhood deeper than color 
or race, its declaration of the dignity as 



76 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



well as democracy of its highest tribunal 
— that flag will be lowered to the dust, 
never to be raised aloft again. Yea, its 
very name writ on water. 

What kind of "union" is that? 



CHAPTER VIII 



INTERLUDE 
I 

If the preceding chapters have pro- 
duced a feeling of hostility to this Plan 
on the part of many in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, it can scarcely l3e a 
matter of astonishment. The proposed 
Plan is seen to be a proposition that de- 
mands from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church not union but a capitulation at 
every point. It amounts to an accusation, 
even an arraignment, of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and her history. Con- 
ceding every point and claim for which 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
has stood, the Plan is a confession of 
error on the part of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church at all points, at some points, 
moreover, on which she ought to be sensi- 
tive. 

Speaking plainly, therefore, we can 
77 



78 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



scarcely conceive that when these facts 
are squarely faced any such one-sided 
Plan, in which the Methodist Episcopal 
Church is remembered only by its epi- 
taph, will find favor. Will Christendom 
expect a spectacle so improper, so de- 
structive of self-respect? Does the 
Church South expect it? Does she really 
wish it? It is true the Plan came to the 
General Conference of the Church South 
bearing the unanimous subscription of 
the J oint Commission, including our own 
nine members ; and this may have misled 
many. But this unanimous subscription 
to the Plan was not intended to be under- 
stood as a unanimous commendation of 
the Plan — or any commendation at all. 
Bishop Cranston, whom we quote at 
length in a previous chapter, makes that 
plain. The Plan is not a cul de sac ; it is, 
as is necessary, a port of departure in a 
quest — such a quest as this little look is 
making, and had to make, as has already 
been made so transparently plain. 

And in this, if this writer has spoken 
with something of abruptness, it has not 
been with the slightest feeling of disre- 



INTERLUDE 



79 



spect for our brothers in the South — able, 
high-minded, conscientious — who have 
handed this Plan to the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church as a basis of organic union. 
We do not believe they stopped to think 
it through. These leaders are men of 
plain speech, sensitive too, and for that 
we honor them. That great Tennessean 
— a graduate of Ohio Wesley an Univer- 
sity — we would like to claim him — Bishop 
E. E. Hoss, at the initial meeting of the 
Commission on Federation in Baltimore, 
illustrated this understandable bluntness 
of speech. He said, "You need have no 
fear that I shall palter with words in a 
double sense." Announcing his ulti- 
matum 6n a matter relating to the pres- 
ence of certain congregations in certain 
regions, he said at that time: "The 
Church that is faithless in one engage- 
ment will, if interest or convenience 
require it, be faithless to another, and 
does not deserve to be trusted. If it 
be said in answer to this dictum that 
General Conferences cannot always con- 
trol the actions of their agents or enforce 
the terms of their own voluntary con- 



80 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

tracts, then it only remains to further 
affirm that General Conferences which 
are so impotent are practicing a fraud 
when they make such compacts. This 
language is perfectly general in its scope, 
and hits only those, but all those, who 
are in the way of it. Here I stand stub- 
bornly, and from this position I will not 
budge one inch." 

It is this kind of directness that this 
little book would emulate, because if the 
matter stands in broad daylight it can be 
looked at, taken hold of, turned over and 
about, so all concerned will know what is 
being done when this Plan for organic 
union is before American Methodism. To 
our thinking, speaking the final word on 
this phase of the matter, the proposed 
Plan for organic union is but a mas- 
querade. 

II 

But is there not in the Plan a sugges- 
tion on which without the surrender of 
a single atom of self-respect on the part 
of any branch of American Methodism 



INTERLUDE 



81 



this Methodism can become one? We are 
certain there is. We are certain that but 
few alterations in the Plan before us are 
necessary to a final plan on which all can 
agree, a plan that will protect all minor- 
ity bodies, a plan that will guarantee a 
proper representation among bishops, 
officials, general as well as local boards, 
a plan that will protect the constitution 
against invasion by the General Confer- 
ence, and, supremely, a plan that will 
make Methodism truly one. 

We understand perfectly well that no 
plan which the Methodist Episcopal 
Church can send in return to the Church 
South will meet her approbation for one 
moment unless that plan strikes the con- 
sciousness of the Church South as just 
as well as fraternal, protecting it from 
the hazard of tyranny of even a well- 
meaning majority. We understand that 
any plan must stand the closest scrutiny, 
the crucible of strong intellects, the 
spontaneous response of the people, that 
it must be inviting, or it will fail. We 
will never bring the people of the two 
Methodisms nearer together by a vise. 



82 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Is such a plan possible? We believe it. 
And we proceed, as regards the structural 
character of the Church that is to be, to 
make a few suggestions. And God for- 
bid that one word should be set down ex- 
cept in the spirit of Him who prayed that 
his disciples "may be one, that the world 
may believe that thou hast sent me." 



CHAPTER IX 



THE GENERAL CONFERENCE 
I 

Originally there was no General Con- 
ference. From the organization of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in 1784 till 
1791 the gatherings of the preachers for 
conference on church questions were 
called "The Conference," and this body 
met in sections, in various parts of the 
connection, varying from three in 1785 
to sixteen in 1792. This number was 
never understood to impair the unity or 
the supremacy of the one body known as 
"The Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church." 

The year 1792 ranks with the year 1784, 
when the Church was created, and 1808, 
when the delegated General Conference 
was created, as a milestone in our con- 
stitutional history. In that year the Dis- 
cipline first contained the question, "Who 
83 



84 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



shall compose the General Conference?" 
("Answer: All the traveling preachers 
in full connection.") And also: "Who 
are members of the (Annual) Confer- 
ence?" ("Answer: All the traveling 
preachers of the district or districts who 
are in full connection." ) It w T as provided 
that the General Conference should meet 
four years later. The answer to the ques- 
tion, "How often shall the District (An- 
nual) Conferences be held?" was, "An- 
nually." For the first time the election of 
the bishops was made the exclusive func- 
tion of the General Conference, and also 
for the first time these officers were made 
amenable to this tribunal, "the General 
Conference." From 1792 the General 
Conference and the Annual Conference 
have each developed along the lines then 
defined. 

II 

It is now proposed to reconstruct the 
General Conference, making it a body 
with two houses. The Plan provides: 
"We suggest that the General Conference 



GENERAL CONFERENCE 85 



shall consist of two houses, each house 
to be composed of equal numbers of min- 
isterial and lay delegates. The delegates 
in the first house shall be apportioned 
equally among the Quadrennial Confer- 
ences . . . The ministerial delegates in 
the second house shall be elected by the 
ministerial members in the Annual Con- 
ferences, and the lay delegates by the 
laity within the Annual Conferences, 
under equitable rules to be provided 
therefor." That is to say, the members 
of the second house of the General Con- 
ference are to be elected precisely as we 
now elect delegates, ministerial and lay, 
to the General Conference. The members 
of the first house are to be elected by a 
new, not to say extraordinary, body at 
present unknown to Methodism any- 
where, a novelty to which due attention 
will be given presently. 

What is the purpose of this theory of 
two houses in the one General Confer- 
ence? 

First of all, we will find a partial 
answer to the question if we recall the 
fact that this proposition is not new. 



88 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Fifty years ago the proposal for two 
houses for the General Conference had 
a momentary vogue. One of the most 
learned speeches ever prepared for a Gen- 
eral Conference was that of Dr. William 
H. Perrine for the Conference of 1872, 
the year in which lay representatives first 
appeared in that body. In a speech of 
great length and learning Dr. Perrine 
made a plea for such a reconstruction of 
the General Conference. His argument, 
however, was based on orders, one house 
to contain only ministers, the other only 
laymen, while the Plan now before Amer- 
ican Methodism calls for two houses 
based on sectional areas. 

We can but conclude that the under- 
girding reasons for the proposal then and 
the proposal now were dissimilar, and for 
reasons that will become visible as we 
look at the manner in which the members 
of the first house were, and are, to be 
chosen. The whole gravamen of Dr. 
Perrine's argument was the preservation 
of the constitution from invasion by the 
General Conference. In defense of his 
thesis Dr. Perrine quoted the writings of 



GENERAL CONFERENCE 87 



Jefferson, Hamilton, Chief Justice Story, 
Webster, and others on the dangers to the 
Constitution if one body consisting of one 
house is invested with the power of irre- 
sponsible legislation, and of pronouncing 
that legislation constitutional. Dr. Per- 
rine's motive, therefore, was not the 
motive of the two houses which it is now 
proposed to create, because, as we have 
pointed out, the Plan now before us 
definitely provides a totally different 
mechanism, namely the College of 
Bishops, for safeguarding the constitu- 
tion from invasion. This leaves the pur- 
pose of this double house entirely differ- 
ent. When we observe that one group of 
delegates is to be elected by the Quadren- 
nial Conference north of Mason and Dix- 
on's line, and a group of precisely the 
same size is to be elected by a minority 
south of Mason and Dixon's line, with an- 
other group of precisely the same size 
elected by a Quadrennial Conference to be 
constituted in the Par West, the reason 
steps from behind its arras. The present 
Plan is proposed, not to protect the consti- 
tution, but to protect sections — in brief, 



88 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



to protect the equality of the minority. 
The three groups are to have exactly the 
same number of members, though the 
Northern Quadrennial Conference would 
include three million members, while the 
Western Quadrennial Conference in- 
cludes less than three hundred thousand. 

We cannot believe that fair play would 
be jeopardized by any tyrannical assump- 
tion due to our numbers vastly predomi- 
nating over the Church South if the Gen- 
eral Conference should be constituted 
precisely upon its present lines. At the 
same time, when a denomination possess- 
ing a membership of two and a half mil- 
lion comes into a compact with a denom- 
ination of four and a half millions, it is 
to be expected that the body having the 
lesser number — albeit a denomination of 
two and a half millions is by no means a 
small body — should have its minority 
rights fully conserved in the compact of 
union. We approve therefore of Bishop 
Hoss's contention. The bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church at their Des 
Moines meeting in the spring of 1914, 
expressly declared themselves in favor of 



GENERAL CONFERENCE 89 



safeguarding in the organic laws such 
minority rights. It is, moreover, per- 
fectly safe to make the prophecy that no 
plan of union which forgets to adequately 
conserve minority rights will find accept- 
ance. The question is whether the pro- 
posed Plan offers the preferable or proper 
mechanism, or whether another plan as 
perfectly dependable and equitable and 
popular and cosmopolitan is at hand. We 
are certain there is. It will be a General 
Conference not of two houses, but a Gen- 
eral Conference of one house possessing 
two divisions, available at any moment to 
fully protect any minority interest. 

Ill 

With a few observations, we pass by 
the incompatibilities of the proposed 
Plan : it is expensive ; it perpetuates sec- 
tionalism ; it doubles the committees and 
subcommittees; it creates the cumber- 
some necessity of bringing every proposi- 
tion before two bodies with the incidental 
parliamentary delays and obstacles inci- 
dent to such a scheme. It lessens the 



90 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



prestige of the General Conference. The 
item of expense to the Church in support- 
ing practically two General Conferences, 
the difficulty of providing for this added 
expense, the loss of power in the multi- 
plication of machinery, contribute to 
make a millstone around the neck of this 
proposition, provided a simpler, and par- 
ticularly provided a better, mechanism is 
at hand. 

If a mechanism equally efficient, sim- 
pler, better for the concrete work of the 
Church, more economical, more popular, 
is within reach, it cannot be that this 
Plan for a General Conference which 
must have two houses, will find favor any- 
where, South or North. 

A chapter must intervene before this 
matter is clearly explained. 



CHAPTER X 



AN INTENSIVE EPISCOPACY 
I 

The idea that the episcopacy can be 
subordinated to the General Conference 
is abhorrent to the constitutional history 
of Methodism. The episcopate in Meth- 
odism is older than the organized 
Church ; it is one of the materials out of 
which the Church was made. Episcopacy 
arose when John Wesley, "preferring an 
episcopal form of government/' sent over 
a liturgy and with it Dr. Coke in epis- 
copal orders, or episcopal functions, as 
you please; it is immaterial to the pur- 
pose now before us what the individual 
opinion of any reader may be. We are 
an Episcopal Church with a scriptural 
episcopate. We are the first Episcopal 
Church organized in America. We have 
no prelatical episcopacy, that is, an epis- 
91 



92 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



copacy based on the dogma of apostolic 
succession, and thus handed down from 
above, pendant, as it were, from the 
sovereignty of the Pope, or oath of alle- 
giance to the crown. Ours is an epis- 
copacy finding its authority, as is proper, 
in the Church. The charter which 
created the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in 1784 recognized an episcopacy already 
existing. It did not create it. It is true 
it was at the outset an institution plastic 
in the Church, but when, twenty-four 
years later, the Church created the dele- 
gated General Conference, it informed 
that body what it could and could not do 
as regards episcopacy. It is unthink- 
able that the General Conference under 
the charter under which it exists, should 
knowingly invade, violate, and trample 
under foot the institution which ante- 
dates it, and is protected by the very 
genius of the Church as well as by the 
Restrictive Eules. 

On the other hand, exercising such 
rights as did not interfere with the spirit 
of the Restrictive Rules, General Con- 
ferences, acting in behalf of the interests 



INTENSIVE EPISCOPACY 93 



of the kingdom of God, and in the light 
of experiences on a wide scale, have insti- 
tuted reforms, not against general super- 
intendency which General Conference has 
no power to do, but in the interests of a 
more intensive application of the office. 
In the matter of episcopal residences for 
nearly one hundred years no attention 
was paid to where bishops lived. More- 
over, the early bishops were unmarried 
and their post office was an itinerant's 
saddle bags. 

In 1872, General Conference having 
chosen the unprecedented number of eight 
bishops, the body felt it proper to say: 
"The Committee on Episcopacy respect- 
fully report that in their judgment one 
of the newly elected bishops should reside 
at or near each of the following places; 
San Francisco, Saint Louis, Boston, 
Atlanta, Chicago, Cincinnati, Council 
Bluffs or Omaha, Saint Paul." The re- 
port suggested that "They should select 
their residences from the places named, 
according to their seniority in official 
position." This was perfectly compe- 
tent in the General Conference. From 



94 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



that date, for twenty-eight years, General 
Conferences fixed the episcopal resi- 
dences, leaving the bishops free to choose, 
the choice proceeding in the order of 
seniority. 

In 1900 the Committee on Episcopacy 
reported to General Conference that "the 
power to determine where the general 
superintendents shall reside inheres in 
the General Conference." This doctrine 
was adopted and, accordingly, the bishops 
were assigned to their residences for four 
years. This departure w r as dictated by 
experience; it was necessary; and, being 
followed unto this hour, it has worked 
well. 

There may be exceptions, but that does 
not invalidate the value of the rule ; there 
are not always enough bishops of a cer- 
tain kind to go round. 

II 

The General Conference in 1904 went 
a step further. Actual superintendency 
by bishops in Conference areas and prob- 
lems expressly under their charge had 



INTENSIVE EPISCOPACY 95 



been reduced in many instances to the 
veriest farce. The bishop having juris- 
diction over a New England Conference, 
for example, might live in San Francisco 
or Buenos Ayres or Zurich. Concrete 
superintendency was a crying need, but 
it was an impossibility. To remedy this 
some went so far as even to champion a 
districted episcopacy, in which a bishop 
would have all his official labors fenced 
in by a given area. The matter was re- 
ferred to the Judiciary Committee in the 
General Conference of 1904; the Com- 
mittee reported adversely. A great de- 
bate followed. The great speeches by 
Dr. Charles W. Smith and Judge Lin- 
coln, of Albany, satisfied the General 
Conference that in the face of the Restric- 
tive Rule, no such power resided in the 
General Conference. 

The General Conference of 1912, how- 
ever, solved the problem by distinguish- 
ing between the historic general superin- 
tendency in the administration or presi- 
dency of Conferences, and concrete super- 
vision. The former belongs to the general 
superintendency. Indeed, the whole 



96 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



matter of supervision inheres in episco- 
pacy, and mandatory directions invading 
its right would be a species of tyranny. 
Nor did the General Conference of 1912 
in any particular do more than request 
the bishops to make the distinction we 
have referred to. The language of the 
report is : 

CONTIGUOUS AND CONTINUOUS EPISCOPAL 
SUPERVISION 

1. We recommend that in the intervals of the 
Annual Conference sessions each resident bishop 
shall be held responsible for the administration 
of the spiritual and temporal interests of the 
Church in those Conferences adjacent to his resi- 
dence, the decision as to which Conferences are ad- 
jacent to a particular residence being left to the 
Board of Bishops. To make this provision effec- 
tive, we recommend that one month after the ad- 
journment of an Annual Conference the presidency 
of the Conference shall pass to the bishop resident 
in the group of which it forms a part, and shall 
remain so until one month before the next ensuing 
Annual Conference. 

2. In order to secure detailed and comprehen- 
sive knowledge of the activities, achievements, and 
needs of the entire connection, each bishop is re- 
quested to make quadrennially a written report of 
his administration of the group over which he 
exercises residential supervision, these reports to 
be presented to the General Conference and printed 



INTENSIVE EPISCOPACY 97 



in the General Conference Handbook and Journal. 

3. For the purposes of securing more econom- 
ical and efficient presidential administration, the 
bishops are requested to arrange the Conferences 
in America in three divisions, and to assign each 
bishop for presidential administration to the An- 
nual Conferences of the division within which he 
has his official residence. 

The value of this plan rested absolutely 
in its wisdom tested by experience. The 
bishops arranged the Conferences in the 
United States into nineteen contiguous 
groups for residential supervision. They 
were able to do this by accepting the re- 
quest that the government of an Annual 
Conference pass at fixed dates into the 
hands of the residential bishop. The 
value of the Plan is everywhere evident. 
As time goes on, while it will never be a 
law based on the mandatory enactment 
of General Conference, it will have the 
same force, as an institution, that the 
Cabinet of presiding elders or district 
superintendents has. For notice: until 
within this quadrennium the word "Cab- 
inet," referring to the manner of making 
appointments, did not, from cover to 
cover, occur in the Discipline. The edi- 



98 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



tors inserted the word in the Discipline of 
1912 in a small footnote. Nevertheless, 
has Methodism any institution more 
firmly established? Although not legally 
provided for, it is fundamental to our 
economy. As Dr. (afterward Bishop) 
Tigert explained, "It rests on the basis of 
general usage." 

Identically the same is true of residen- 
tial supervision. It has been seen to be 
so wise, it has meant such an increase 
in the value of episcopacy and the for- 
ward movement of the Church, that it 
will never be abandoned. The last sec- 
tion is certain to be rescinded, but that 
has nothing to do with the value of the 
ideal. Rather, that section impedes it. 
The Church, speaking through the Gen- 
eral Conference, has requested the 
bishops to make this arrangement in the 
interest of both a general and an intensive 
application of the principle of superin- 
tendency. As the years pass, as Bishop 
Tigert said in still another place of the 
Cabinet, it too will "rest securely on the 
basis of common consent and general 
usage." 



INTENSIVE EPISCOPACY 99 



III 

The Church South has this intensive 
phase of episcopacy in some particulars. 
No matter to what part of the planet 
Bishop Mouzon may be directed by his 
colleagues, his care of the great, nascent 
university at Dallas will be his partic- 
ular concern — we almost said his par- 
ticular preserve : and even more so it may 
be said of Bishop Candler in the creation 
of the university at Atlanta. It would 
not transform; it would give an added 
dignity and efficiency to their strenuous 
labors, if the plan that they give them- 
selves to these residential tasks came in 
the form of a request from the highest 
tribunal of the Church. And we invite 
every Methodist in our sister Church, as 
well as our own, to give his imagination 
sweep; to contemplate what it would 
mean if such an appeal and request were 
made of every bishop in the reorganized 
Church, if such a division, for example, 
of the territory were made as to give not 
only all Texas or all Georgia, but Vir- 
ginia, the Carolinas, the farthest South, 



100 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



as well as New England, the mountain 
States, yes, all the country, yes, the entire 
globe, such concrete as well as general 
oversight with its electrifying momentum, 
as this provides. 

Let it not be said that this program 
impairs the general superintendency. It 
does not in experience. One bishop — 
Bishop Henderson, for example — is a 
torch-bearer of evangelism, visiting every 
part of the connection, while responsi- 
ble as residential head of a particular 
Chattanooga area. Another bishop de- 
livers the l r ale Lectures and presides 
over any Annual Conference anywhere 
after the manner of the fathers, but 
he remains the responsible head and 
leader of his designated Chicago area. 
Thus we might pass down the line, show- 
ing there has been no infringement of 
general superintendency in this, but that 
added to general superintendency is this 
expanded and intensified vision of serv- 
ice. May the day come when every 
square mile of territory under the flag 
and throughout the planet will feel the 
impact of such leadership. The laymen 



INTENSIVE EPISCOPACY 101 



crave it. They are right. The "new 
Church" should incorporate it in what 
Bishop Tigert calls "common consent and 
general usage." 

It will be seen in the next chapter what 
an important bearing this development of 
episcopacy has on the enigmas presented 
in the Plan for the structure of the Gen- 
eral Conference in the united Church that 
is to be. 



CHAPTER XI 



THE SUPERVISIONAL CONFER- 
ENCE 

The Plan proposed for the structure of 
the new Methodism in this hemisphere 
provides that "the governing power of the 
reorganized Church be vested in one Gen- 
eral Conference and three or four Quad- 
rennial Conferences" which shall have 
"full" legislative power over all affairs 
pertaining to their respective areas. 
They shall choose their own bishops ; they 
shall fix the boundaries of Annual Con- 
ferences within their respective jurisdic- 
tions. From them shall be elected the 
delegates who shall constitute the first 
house of the General Conference. 

The bearing of this Plan on anything 
resembling organic union has already 
been pointed out. It is not organic union 
but organic sectionalism. It divides the 
country once more as it was bisected at 

102 



SUPERVISIONAL 103 



the separation in 1844, having a third 
section in the newer Far West. We have 
seen that it perpetuates and fosters the 
very thing organic union is intended to 
erase. It does not resemble the division 
of a nation into several States ; rather it 
is what the nation would be if there were 
a plenary Congress south of Mason and 
Dixon's line and another north of that 
line — with still another Congress over 
all. 

At the same time it must be no less 
plain that something like that to which 
the theory of Quadrennial Conferences 
points the way is a necessity. There are 
plenty of matters in which considerable 
sections of the country have a homogene- 
ous and common interest. It is at this 
moment a weakness in each denomination 
that vital interests which touch certain 
large regions in common should have no 
mechanism for adequately considering 
them. The weak are left to their isola- 
tion and loneliness, when it might be 
otherwise. Not to carry the illustration 
too far, but to bring it forward because 
it does illustrate what we are trying to 



104 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



make plain, we may cite the Roman 
Catholic organization. The Roman 
Catholic Church, while having its central- 
ized power, divides the United States not 
only into dioceses but as well into prov- 
inces over them. There are fourteen of 
these. Each province is presided over by 
an archbishop; under him are all the 
bishops in the dioceses which constitute 
the province. The province of Boston, 
for example, embraces all New England, 
which is divided among eight dioceses. 
The province of Oregon City embraces the 
seven dioceses of Oregon, Idaho, Montana, 
Washington, and the prefecture of 
Alaska. It is plain that such an organ- 
ization enables the Church to get the 
deeper scrutiny of any situation, to do 
team work, intensive, strategic, because of 
a structural organization of its field. A 
colored map showing this Catholic pro- 
vincial division of the United States is 
informing at this point. 

The necessity of some such arrange- 
ment of the United States, from the 
standpoint of Methodist efficiency, is 
every little while coming to the surface. 



SUPERVISIONAL 



105 



Regional conventions are an illustration. 
Not many months ago a convention of all 
New England Methodism was held in 
Boston, and it was deemed of sufficient 
importance that the addresses and resolu- 
tions of the convention should be brought 
out in book form for intensive study by 
New England Methodists, and for that 
matter, by the Church at large. It was 
not a convention merely for Fourth-of- 
J uly, spread-eagle oratory, garnishing 
the graves of the fathers; it was a con- 
vention held by representatives of the 
six New England Conferences and ad- 
dressed by experts in the interest of the 
concrete problems that face New England 
Methodism now — that is to say, it was a 
gathering of regional Methodism to take 
stock of itself, to do what neither the 
remote General Conference, nor the 
Annual Conferences acting separately, 
could do. The definitive proof of this is 
seen in the resolutions. What might it 
not have meant had these resolutions been 
instead legislation with a certain bind- 
ing and legal as well as moral obligation, 
and what might it not mean, not only to 



106 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



New England Methodism but to every 
other region, if a regional conference 
were provided for? 

II 

The Methodist Episcopal Church has 
already taken the first step for providing 
such regional Conferences. The Gen- 
eral Conference of 1912 established, as we 
have seen, not only episcopal residences, 
but requested the bishops to make those 
residences the center for a regional or 
residential supervision of the Church. 
The bishops were invited to divide among 
them the Conferences for such purposes 
of supervision, said groups to be as con- 
tiguous and near as practicable to the 
fixed residences. The General Confer- 
ence then requested the bishops to ar- 
range so that while maintaining the gen- 
eral superintendency, they should ar- 
range that the supervision of the Confer- 
ences should, thirty days after the 
adjournment of an Annual Conference, 
return to the residential bishop and there 
remain until thirty days before the ses- 



SUPERVISIONAL 107 



sion of the next ensuing Annual Confer- 
ence. This perpetuates the historic gen- 
eral superintendency of Annual Confer- 
ences as in the days of the fathers, but it 
establishes a residential supervision 
which brings the bishop into the prob- 
lems, the anxieties, the definite needs and 
programs of the churches in a definite 
area. 

Experience has shown that this group- 
ing of the Annual Conferences, applied 
throughout the planet, is a master stroke. 
The plan has displaced a remote and 
somewhat imaginary, not to say Pick- 
wickian, leadership by evolving also a 
concrete superintendency, and the Church 
has felt the thrill. It has linked Annual 
Conferences together according to their 
homogeneous problems. If in any case the 
division or the superintendency has been 
unwise, experience has demonstrated at 
least the wisdom of the plan. 

Ill 

It is but an easy, a normal, and, we 
believe, even inevitable step from this 



108 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



regional supervision to a regional or 
Supervisional Conference. It might be 
provided that once each year the bishop 
shall convene all the district superin- 
tendents in his residential jurisdiction 
for the careful joint consideration of 
problems that face that area. What a 
chance for a denominational program! 
It might then be provided that once quad- 
rennially a Conference should be held in 
which not only the district superintend- 
ents ex officio, but delegates from the 
Annual Conferences, divided equally be- 
tween ministerial and lay delegates, 
should be convened ; that this Conference, 
on appeal from the Annual Conferences, 
might consider such matters as Confer- 
ence boundaries ; that colleges whose con- 
stituency and management reach over 
Conference lines, immigration, hospitals, 
and the hundred and one other matters 
in which that area has a deep community 
of interest, should be considered, not 
academically but collectively, intensively, 
and w^ith pow r er. 

In the meantime, between the meeting 
of these regional or, better, Supervisional 



SUPERVISIONAL 109 



Conferences the bishop and his district 
superintendents will do team work; they 
will all meet annually in executive ses- 
sion ; there will be a mutuality of under- 
standing and incentive. Of course the 
bishop will also meet the superintendents 
of each Annual Conference. The analogy 
of the Roman Catholic scheme is realized ; 
the bishop is the metropolitan; the dis- 
trict superintendents are the diocesans; 
there is all the opportunity for joint 
w r ork, for concentration in program and 
supervision, which has in it the potency 
of a vast advance. The amplest provi- 
sion should be made to insure the Church 
South the amplest fair play in this 
matter. 

IV 

This Supervisional Conference, meeting 
quadrennially, might well be charged 
with electing delegates to the General 
Conference, not to a separate house, as 
proposed by the Plan before us, but to the 
one body, the number of ministerial and 
lay delegates thus elected to the General 
Conference to be equal, and the numbers 



110 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



from each Supervisional Conference to 
be strictly equal to each of the others. 

For very obvious reasons, as we have 
seen, there should be but one house in the 
General Conference. But to preserve the 
rights of the minority in every particular, 
as regards elections as well as legislation, 
the "new Church" might well do away 
with voting by orders — which is of recent 
origin at the best — and substitute the 
right of the delegates either from the 
Supervisional or from the Annual Con- 
ferences to call for a separate vote, pre- 
cisely the same rules to obtain under this 
new arrangement as are now the law as 
regards voting by orders. 

Voting by orders has never been pop- 
ular. It was introduced in 1872 when 
the laymen came into the General Con- 
ference, and was intended to be simply a 
compensation to the laymen — who were 
entitled to only two delegates to each An- 
nual Conference — for not having equal 
representation, and as an equivalent to 
equal representation. That reason has 
now ceased to exist. Voting by orders, 
with but possibly one or two exceptions 



SUPERVISIONAL 111 



each, has never been used by either the 
Methodist Episcopal Church or the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South. 

The plan here proposed of a General 
Conference having two divisions, offers a 
veto power on unwise legislation, even 
when it is constitutional; it tenders an 
infallible and instant refuge to brethren 
either North or South or West in the 
event of anything resembling the tyranny 
of the majority; and, unlike the Quad- 
rennial Conference, it has no constant 
temptation to redden sectional scars. It 
would make for union. Every advantage 
of the proposed Quadrennial Conference 
is there ; every disadvantage is eliminated. 
The Supervisional Conference is in itself 
a necessity to the efficiency of each of the 
two churches and to one as much as the 
other, as they now are. The plan is 
workable; it is economical; it is local. 
It bears a similitude to the division of 
functions between the nation and the 
States; it makes for solidarity, for pop- 
ularity, for the deepest sympathies, such 
as are out of the question in the Plan that 
now mocks us in the face. 



112 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



As for the General Conference, it would 
have ever present its two divisions; it 
would have a double source of member- 
ship, such as is evolved in the theory of 
Quadrennial Conferences; all details are 
easy of fair and practicable adjustment. 
The General Conference would continue 
to vote on common questions as now. But 
on any question in which it seemed best, 
the two divisions could on a moment's 
notice vote separately compelling all 
rights to be studied and guaranteed. 

If the suggestion here made appeals to 
the good sense, as it can but appeal to 
the chivalry of American Methodism, it 
will be seen that the greatest obstacle to 
organic union is brushed aside. We will 
be able, if only our prayer for reunion as 
in the older days is animated by the 
Saviour's passion and prayer, to proceed 
in our pathway of hope for a union that 
unites. 



CHAPTER XII 



COMPOSITION OF THE ANNUAL 
CONFERENCE 

I 

An investigation of the forms in which 
the structure of the Church is found 
through the ages will reveal the fact that 
structure is an adaptation to prevailing 
institutions. It is an adjustment of polit- 
ical or social forms already existing to 
the needs of the religious organization. 
One can tell in advance, for example, 
what will be the form of the organiza- 
tion of the Jewish Church as it was cre- 
ated at the exodus, if he is informed as 
to the organization of the religion of 
Egypt out of which the migration was to 
come. Studying Karnak, he could fore- 
tell even the structure of the temple with 
its holy place. 

This rule applies to the early ages of 

113 



114 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Christianity. Hatch has shown us that 
the Christian Church being, as all know, 
quite altogether a Gentile institution, de- 
rived its framework, to a large degree, 
from the organization of the Gentile com- 
munity. The early years of the Christian 
era proceeded in a perfectly natural and 
orderly manner in the formation of reli- 
gious associations. It was natural for 
the early converts to associate themselves 
together. In an age of poverty Chris- 
tians naturally were exceptionally poor; 
charity, alms, were the first necessity of 
the early organizations, for the local 
community, with its widows of martyrs, 
its brethren in prison, its members "scat- 
tered abroad" — also there were the neces- 
sities of discipline. 

There is no doubt that in the primitive 
time there was a fundamental principle 
of equality and democracy, even when 
the Church had developed its offices of 
deacons, elders or presbyters and bishops. 
Hatch has proven that laymen no less 
than the church officers could, upon occa- 
sion, teach or preach, baptize, celebrate 
the Eucharist, exercise discipline. The 



ANNUAL CONFERENCE 115 



officers of the infant societies had a prior 
right but not an exclusive right to the 
performance of ecclesiastical functions, 
nor did this original conception at once 
or all at once pass away. In time there 
developed the monarchial episcopate. 
But first there was a parish bishop, later 
the village bishop, later the diocesan 
bishop, then the metropolitan bishop, and 
in time it was but one more step, though 
it was a vast step, to the imperial 
papacy. 

This principle being true, what ought 
the Church to aim at in our day and in 
our land as far as its structure is con- 
cerned? Professor Briggs affirms that in 
America the Church should adapt herself 
to the undergirding ideas of our political 
society: "In modern times, especially in 
the United States of America, the gov- 
ernment divides itself into three channels 
— the legislative, the judicial and the 
executive"; but, he adds, "the Christian 
Church has not developed in its govern- 
ment so far as the modern state." 

When we examine the Annual Confer- 
ence in the light of what we have seen 



116 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



above, and, in particular, in the light of 
Dr. Briggs's dictum, we are able to test 
the character of the Annual Conference. 

II 

The Annual Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, if it is scrutin- 
ized somewhat carefully, will be found to 
contradict at least in part the statement 
of Professor Briggs; it will be found to 
possess and build upon three distinct 
functions — the executive, the judicial, 
and the legislative. The functions of 
the bishop in the Cabinet are purely 
executive. He appoints the members 
of his Cabinet, he fixes the appoint- 
ments of the preachers. In this his power 
is absolute and irresponsible. From this 
use of his executive power there is no 
appeal. Asbury would not even make 
use of a "Cabinet" of presiding elders to 
assist in the appointment of the ministers. 
It was McKendree who, in 1811, refused 
to make the final revision of the appoint- 
ments as furnished him by Asbury until 
he had consulted with the presiding 



ANNUAL CONFERENCE 117 



elders, and so, a generation after the or- 
ganization of the Church, founded this 
universal custom and protection. But he 
did not have to. 

To this day the very existence of the 
Cabinet as we know it rests upon the will 
of the bishops. No one but the bishop is 
responsible for what is done.m the Cab- 
inet. There is not one word in the Dis- 
cipline defining the Cabinet or alluding 
to its possible functions. Not until 1912 
did the word "Cabinet" appear in the 
Book of Discipline, and then only inci- 
dentally in a footnote. 

We dwell upon this to show that the 
executive function in the Annual Confer- 
ence rests absolutely in the episcopal 
office. It cannot be invaded and it is not 
shared by any other. We state the case 
thus directly also because some have seen 
in the membership of laymen in the An- 
nual Conference such an invasion. Dur- 
ing the General Conference of 1912, when 
the question of the admission of laymen 
to the Annual Conference occupied the 
floor, a speech was made claiming that 
laymen should be in the Annual Confer- 



118 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

ence so they might become members of 
the Cabinet and officially participate in 
fixing the appointments of the ministers. 
There is not conceivable a greater absurd- 
ity. The bishop has as much right and as 
much need of calling laymen into his 
Cabinet now as he could have under any 
possible provisions of our polity. The 
Cabinet is absolutely under the control 
of the bishop. The district superintend- 
ents have no legal rights in it ; no conceiv- 
able changes in our polity that did not 
trample under foot the Third Eestrictive 
Eule would give laymen any more right 
to intrude into the Cabinet than they 
possess at this moment. Our constitu- 
tional history — the refusal of Joshua 
Soule to accept the office of bishop when 
it w r as proposed to invade this executive 
office and say that the Annual Conference 
might elect his counselor s, the presiding 
elders, thus limiting his executive power 
— has settled all that. Nothing is so in- 
conceivable as that laymen incompetent 
because of their ignorance of all the 
charges in the Annual Conference and 
all the ministers in the Annual Confer- 



ANNUAL CONFERENCE 119 



ence, shall sit in the Cabinet by virtue of 
any legislation on the part of any Gen- 
eral Conference. Our church polity is 
not dictated by unreason. When laymen 
give all their time to traveling through 
the Conference year after year until after 
years have passed, by virtue of such 
knowledge they finally know thoroughly 
the individuality of all the charges and 
the personality of all the ministers, it 
may be that some bishop will appoint 
them to sit in the Cabinet and give him 
advice as to the making of appointments. 
Foresooth. 

If, in the exercise of his executive func- 
tion, the bishop needs counsel in partic- 
ular cases, it is likely he will ask it from 
laymen, and it is perfectly proper; he 
does that now. And it is quite certain 
he will then receive advice in no larger 
measure than it is gratuitously tendered 
to him as our polity now is. The whole 
matter of laymen in the Cabinet, there- 
fore, may be waved aside as irrelevant. 
The executive function in the Cabinet, 
precisely as in our political structure, is 
in the sole hands of the executive. 



120 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 
III 

The Annual Conference is charged with 
passing upon the qualifications of candi- 
dates for the itinerant ministry. The 
Quarterly Conference, consisting of lay- 
men, in which the preacher in charge and 
the district superintendent have no voice, 
considers the candidate for the ministry, 
their lay brother; the laymen pass upon 
his intellectual equipment, they under- 
write his Christian character and spirit- 
uality, they are responsible for his knock- 
ing at the wicket of the Annual Confer- 
ence ; they then pass him on to those who 
are experts, who alone have the technical 
qualifications, in experience, in study, in 
specialization, to examine him as he pro- 
gresses in his studies and in the holy and 
delicate qualifications for the pastoral 
ministry as to whether the recommenda- 
tion of the laity is justified. Moreover, 
his future brethren, as the years come 
and go, pass every year upon his minis- 
terial character. His name is called. It 
is self-evident that in this delicate and 
sacred matter his peers, his brethren in 



ANNUAL CONFEEENCE 121 



the itineracy, alone can understand — can 
pass proper judgment. This is done every 
year so long as the minister lives, whether 
in active work or not. It is a strictly 
judicial function and, as we have seen, 
it is a natural prerogative of the ministry 
and only of the ministry. Whether the 
minister continues available ; whether he 
studies, toils, leads, is a matter for the 
Quarterly Conference to enlighten the dis- 
trict superintendent upon. On such en- 
lightenment the district superintendent 
will act; we all know that. And should 
it be discovered that the minister afore- 
said is idly falling to the rear; that 
he has come to care for the fleece more 
than for the flock; that his usefulness 
is at an end, his brethren, again acting 
in their judicial capacity, can, will, 
and do request that minister to locate. 
He then returns once more into the 
laity from which his lay brethren had 
lifted him. While he walks with the 
ministers they are his judge. His char- 
acter is in their keeping. They pass upon 
it every year. 

All this is a purely judicial function; 



122 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

all rights of the laity are fully provided 
for. They have the necessary openings 
for pronouncing on the fitness of a min- 
ister to continue in the traveling connec- 
tion; but the final judicial act of pro- 
nouncing upon a brother minister is in- 
vested in, and it is reserved for, those who 
understand, those who have dedicated 
their lives to the same vocation, the same 
service of the kingdom of God and his 
Church. It would be an incongruity to 
pass these judicial functions as to min- 
isterial character to a class which does 
not understand. The executive function 
belongs to the bishop; the judicial func- 
tion relating to ministerial character be- 
longs to the ministry. 

IV 

But every Annual Conference, and 
every session of the same, is concerned 
with matters of legislation. What shall 
the churches within the boundaries of the 
Conference do as regards education, 
temperance, Sabbath-keeping, hospitals, 
support of the worn-out preachers, 



ANNUAL CONFERENCE 123 

orphanages, periodical literature, inter- 
national peace, civil and religious liberty, 
social service, the social evil, marriage 
and divorce, domestic missions, foreign 
missions, Sunday schools, State univer- 
sities, publishing interests, aid of freed- 
men? This does not exhaust the list of 
subjects that come up every year for 
what may be called legislative action, but 
hints at the list. 

Moreover, there is a business side to the 
Annual Conference. The department of 
statistics, the Board of Stewards, the 
benevolent collections, the handling of the 
Conference finances, intricate, and reach- 
ing in cash and vouchers into scores of 
thousands of dollars, claims on the Con- 
ference fund, the trustees of colleges, 
trustees of hospitals and other institu- 
tions — there are sixty-nine questions in 
the Discipline relating to such matters. 
Can anyone say that these questions per- 
tain to the ministry in any degree beyond 
what they pertain to the laity? Are they 
not common to both? Is there any rea- 
son sound in principle why the laity 
should not have a voice in discussing 



124 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



these questions and in voting upon them? 
In a political organization such as we live 
in in State and nation, is it just to forbid 
the laymen to participate in these things? 
Do they not speak and vote upon such 
matters in the General Conference, the 
District Conference, the Quarterly Con- 
ference? Accordingly, is it not anoma- 
lous that the door of the Annual Confer- 
ence should be shut in their faces as a 
class when these particular questions are 
under consideration? Is it not in essence 
taxation without representation, that the 
laity as a class are forbidden to enter the 
inclosure of the Annual Conference when 
matters so vital to them are under discus- 
sion? Forbidden, indeed, to speak or to 
vote when what practically are levies are 
being put upon them, and when legisla- 
tive pronouncements, not of the ministry, 
but of the Church, are being rendered and 
published to the world? 

v It is just at this point that the polity 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church is 
unfair. We are not at this point demo- 
cratic ; we are exclusive. We legislate by 
class legislation. The argument of Pro- 



ANNUAL CONFERENCE 125 



fessor Briggs applies to us — "The Chris- 
tian church has not developed in its 
government as far as the modern state." 

In the following bodies laymen are 
members of the Annual Conference: 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South; 
Methodist Protestant, Methodist Church 
of Canada, Irish Methodist, Wesleyan 
Methodist, Australian Methodist, French 
Methodist, South African Methodist, Con- 
gregational Methodist, Free Methodist, 
not to mention several other important 
bodies. One, and but one, great division 
of the Methodist family does not tolerate 
lay participation in any possible part of 
the Annual Conference. That body is the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 

In the proposed plan for organic union 
it is provided that laymen shall be mem- 
bers of the Annual Conference. This is 
right in principle. It is in harmony with 
the institutions in the midst of which we 
live. It involves no loss of ministerial 
rights in purely ministerial matters. It 
has been proven to be wise and in no case 
a detriment among the Methodist bodies 
who have imbedded it in their funda- 



126 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



mental laws. It is in line with the normal 
and orderly development seen in onr own 
past. Is it saying too much to say it is 
inevitable? 

To recapitulate: The executive branch 
of the Annual Conference is the function 
of episcopacy. Questions of ministerial 
character belong to the ministry. Ques- 
tions of legislation and of business belong 
to the Church — that is to say, to the min- 
istry and laity. 

Any plan for organic union should in- 
clude lay membership in the Annual Con- 
ference. 



CHAPTER XIII 



TO PREVENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL 
LEGISLATION 

I 

The Plan before us provides : "We sug- 
gest that neither the General Conference 
nor any of the Quadrennial Conferences 
be invested with final authority to inter- 
pret the constitutionality of its own ac- 
tions." This raises the question as to 
where shall be lodged the power to pre- 
vent unconstitutional legislation. The 
question is interesting; it is also impor- 
tant. 

II 

Unlike the British empire and like the 
United States of America, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church has a written constitu- 
tion: but, unlike the United States of 
127 



128 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



America and like the British empire, the 
legislative body of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church has no check to prevent its 
exceeding its constitutional powers. 
Says Judge Thomas M. Cooley: "Accord- 
ing to the theory of British constitutional 
law, the Parliament possesses and wields 
supreme power; and if, therefore, its en- 
actments conflict with the constitution, 
they are nevertheless valid, and must 
operate as modifications or amendments 
of it. But where, as in America, the 
legislature acts under a delegated author- 
ity limited by the constitution itself, the 
judiciary is empowered to decide what the 
law is, and unconstitutional enactment 
must fall when it is submitted to the or- 
deal of the courts." 

The Methodist Episcopal Church pre- 
sents the anomaly of having a written 
constitution, but having no power desig- 
nated to protect it. No power can pass 
upon the legality of motions once passed ; 
so, while in having a written constitution 
it resembles the government under which 
it exists, it resembles the British Parlia- 
ment in the irresponsible power of its 



LEGISLATION 129 



legislature to vote measures which invade 
and nullify the constitution. Correctly 
speaking, the General Conference is un- 
like Parliament in that the General Con- 
ference is not a sovereignty. It was 
created by the traveling ministers and 
exists under limitations, imposed by 
them, that can as regards certain 
matters, at least, be enforced in the civil 
courts. But where such refuge is im- 
proper or is passed by, the General Con- 
ference is irresponsible. 

This cannot be better or more vigor- 
ously stated than it has been by that care- 
ful and very able expositor of Methodist 
polity, Dr. (afterward Bishop) John J. 
Tigert: "Should the [Methodist Epis- 
copal] General Conference at any time, 
however innocently, exceed its constitu- 
tional powers, the Annual Conferences 
have no protection and no redress; the 
bishops can only submit or resign; the 
Church itself, should the guaranteed 
rights of the membership be invaded, has 
no remedy save that of revolution. There 
is no power but that of the General Con- 
ference." 



130 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Up until 1808, when the delegated 
General Conference was provided for, 
there could be no question as to the con- 
stitutionality of any action taken by the 
[General] Conference, since up to and in- 
cluding that time the [General] Confer- 
ence included all traveling ministers, who 
in turn composed the Church as legally 
constituted. The creation of the dele- 
gated General Conference brought into 
existence a body which was granted "full 
power to make rules and regulations for 
the Church subject to the limitations and 
restrictions of 'Six Restrictive Rules/ " 
We are not without illustrations of what 
Bishop Tigert describes as this irrespon- 
sible and unconstitutional exercise of 
power. In 1820 General Conference 
did pass resolutions declaring the right of 
Annual Conferences to elect presiding 
elders. This Bishop McKendree regarded 
as an invasion of the Third Restrictive 
Rule guaranteeing the appointing power 
of the bishops. He publicly, before the 
General Conference, protested against the 
action. Joshua Soule had been elected 
bishop previous to this action ; he an- 



LEGISLATION 



131 



nounced that he felt himself unable to 
be consecrated if that unconstitutional 
action was to go into force. In conse- 
quence, he declined the office of bishop. 
The General Conference accordingly 
voted, not to rescind, but to suspend, the 
operation of the law for four years. Dur- 
ing that time Bishop McKendree sub- 
mitted the question to the ministers in 
the traveling connection through the An- 
nual Conferences. In 1824 General Con- 
ference again voted to suspend the ac- 
tion as to an elective presiding eldership ; 
in 1828 the act was rescinded. What 
this incident clearly shows is, first, that 
General Conference may exceed its legal 
powers, and, second, that it is not a 
settled principle that General Confer- 
ence is the only power competent to de- 
termine the constitutionality of its acts. 

Ill 

It would seem necessary to our view 
that some such protection of our free con- 
stitution should be provided. It would 
be well to recall the words of Montes- 



132 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



quieu — "There can be no liberty where the 
legislative, executive, and judicial pow- 
ers are united in the same Senate" — at 
any rate, there can be no guarantee 
against encroachments on that liberty 
supposed to be inviolable. J eff erson held 
the same doctrine, making the point that 
it is "no alleviation that these [legisla- 
tive, executive, and judicial] powers will 
be exercised by a plurality of hands and 
not by a single one. One hundred and 
seventy-three despots would be as op- 
pressive as one." It is, so far as we have 
discovered in consulting a long list of 
authorities, a unanimous doctrine of 
political philosophers that there must be 
checks on legislation to prevent what is 
found to be a really despotic invasion, 
no matter how innocent or well-meaning. 
We understand how necessary and how 
precious are such checks provided in the 
divisions of our civil government for pro- 
tecting our institutions and our liberty. 
It is not necessary to associate with its 
fracture an indifference or contempt as 
to the constitution; it is only necessary 
to consider the size and the composition 



LEGISLATION 133 



of the General Conference, and the psy- 
chology of such a huge mass gathered 
from the ends of the earth, to see how 
easy it might be for the body possessing 
irresponsible power to pass beyond its 
legal boundaries. It is not a question of 
intention ; it is a question of fact. 

IV 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
the days of her ancient unity, felt this. 
As early as 1816, a few weeks after his 
death, a posthumous address of Bishop 
Asbury was read to the General Confer- 
ence in which the great leader pleaded 
for a "Committee on Safety," which 
should protect the constitution from 
encroachment by the General Confer- 
ence. The General Conference of 1820, 
which has already passed under notice, 
adopted this resolution : 

Whereas, It appears important to us that some 
course should be taken to determine this business; 
therefore, 

Resolved, That we will advise, and hereby do 
advise, the several Annual Conferences to pass 




134 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



such resolutions as will enable the next General 
Conference so to alter the constitution that when- 
ever a resolution or motion which goes to alter any 
part of our Discipline is passed by the General 
Conference it shall be examined by the superin- 
tendent or superintendents; and if they, or a ma- 
jority of them, shall judge it unconstitutional, they 
shall, within three days after its passage, return it 
to the Conference with their objections to it in 
writing. And whenever it is so returned the Con- 
ference shall reconsider it; and if it pass by a 
majority of two thirds, it shall be constitutional 
and pass into a law, notwithstanding the objec- 
tions of the superintendents; and if it be not re- 
turned within three days, it shall be considered 
as not objected to and become a law. 

It will be seen that this resolution de- 
clares : "There does not appear to be any 
proper tribunal to judge of and deter- 
mine such a [constitutional] question." 
It was and it is a fact. Exactly what 
became of this resolution is a historical 
enigma. But the next General Confer- 
ence returned to the subject. A constitu- 
tional amendment introduced by Dr. 
Lovick Pierce, having the same general 
effect, was adopted. However, it is to 
be noted that it was carried by a majority 
of only six votes. A change of three 
would have defeated it. It is quite likely 



LEGISLATION 135 



that the presiding eldership question 
caused the heavy minority vote, many of 
the strong minds of the Church believing 
it unjust that they were not permitted to 
select their own presiding elders. It is 
more than possible that believing in this, 
and hoping for its realization, they de- 
clined to place the veto power in the 
hands of McKendree and Soule, who held 
that the movement was a trespass on the 
precincts of episcopal guarantees under 
the constitution. The vote against may 
have been an opportunist vote. In any 
event, nothing tangible was accom- 
plished. 

In 1836 an attempt was made to pro- 
vide a constitutional brake. A Com- 
mittee on Judiciary was created, charged 
with rendering an opinion on the legality 
of any question that might be submitted 
to it by General Conference. It had no 
original powers; it could not arrest un- 
constitutional legislation ; its voice could 
be heard only when a formal vote re- 
quested it. 

This Judiciary Committee has been 
raised at every General Conference fol- 



136 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



lowing 1836. It has no place in law. 
The "Rules of Order" simply provide 
how the committee may be provided. At 
the present time the Rules provide that 
"each General Conference District shall 
nominate from their number one mem- 
ber, and the bishop shall nominate four, 
making the total number nineteen." But 
the Rules make no definition of what this 
committee shall be empowered to do. On 
the fourth day of the session of 1912 Dr. 
Horace Lincoln Jacobs moved that "all 
appeals from Annual Conferences, from 
individual ministers and from lay mem- 
bers, together with the records of all 
Judicial Conferences and such legal ques- 
tions as the General Conference shall de- 
sire to send to it, shall be referred to the 
Judiciary Committee." The committee 
is the creation of each successive Gen- 
eral Conference, which may dispense 
with it or may omit the germane clause 
mentioned by Dr. Jacobs. In the Church 
South all these functions save the last are 
discharged by the Committee on Appeals 
and Itineracy. And as for the last clause 
it is referred to the College of Bishops. 



LEGISLATION 137 



Among us there is no power to arrest 
illegal legislation. The General Confer- 
ence is at the mercy of a majority. 

V 

The Church South has remedied this 
defect. Not immediately. Soule con- 
tinued to preach the doctrine that the 
constitution of the Church should con- 
tain a rule providing that there should be 
a veto power to which to appeal in pro- 
tection against unconstitutional en- 
croachments. He fell on sleep. But the 
next General Conference of the Church 
South, in 1870, provided for a change in 
the constitution, which met the approval 
of the Church and which is now imbedded 
in her organic law. It reads : 

Provided, That when any rule or regulation is 
adopted by the General Conference, which, in the 
opinion of the bishops, is unconstitutional, the 
bishops may present to the Conference which 
passed said rule or regulation their objections 
thereto, with their reasons in writing; and if then 
the General Conference shall, by a two thirds vote, 
adhere to its action on said rule or regulation, it 
shall then take the course prescribed for altering 
a Restrictive Rule, and if thus passed upon affix- 



138 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



matively, the bishops shall announce that such rule 
or regulation takes effect from that time. 

It is impossible to resist the conviction 
that something in this direction should 
and will be done. Safety, the sense of 
security, calls for it, and who will affirm 
that that call will not be heard? 

VI 

Believing as we do in the democracy of 
religious institutions, we are not afraid 
to trust the General Conference if it is 
brought in time squarely face to face 
with the implications of its proposed 
acts. We scarcely approve, therefore, of 
the provision of the Church South, be- 
cause it belittles the General Conference ; 
it has cumbered the protection of the con- 
stitution with a Chinese wall which over- 
throws absolutely the power of the Gen- 
eral Conference, making it necessary that 
any motion which does not meet the legal 
approval of the College of Bishops must 
go through all the long labors of the con- 
stitutional process in order to become 
valid. This is more than is needed. If 



LEGISLATION 139 



a properly constituted and learned and 
loyal mechanism shall regard a proposi- 
tion as unconstitutional and shall set 
forth its reasons in writing, in case those 
written obstacles are valid, at least one 
third of the General Conference will see 
it and the proposition will fall by the 
wayside. In that case, as is proper, it 
will have to go through the constitutional 
process. In case, however, two thirds of 
the body — particularly if the two divi- 
sions vote separately — after study and 
debate, disagree with the reasoning of 
the veto, the proposition may become 
binding. It will be seen that the proposi- 
tion, even if it fails, yet has its chance; 
the same majority that passed it origi- 
nally can order the proposition sent the 
rounds of the constitutional process. 

As briefly as seems to be practicable, 
this matter has thus been set forth. It 
certainly must be self-evident that some 
court of appeal must exist. The Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church suggests a brake, 
a check, among the many and somewhat 
bewildering functions of the Judiciary 
Committee. 



140 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



But is the Judiciary Committee our 
safest protection? This committee is 
elected by popular vote and after Gen- 
eral Conference convenes. That of itself 
portrays an unavoidable weakness of the 
Plan. The committee brings no previous 
preparation by study or by reflection. It 
has no library; as a committee it knows 
nothing of precedents. It renders its 
decisions over night; and even then a 
majority vote of the General Conference 
must submit the matter to the committee 
or it cannot act. Is there any sense of 
security in this? 

VII 

The Board of Bishops is the proper 
tribunal of arrest. Their life is given to 
the study of our genius and foundations. 
They may be supposed to be beyond the 
reach of petty partisanship or the influ- 
ence of pugnacious doctrinaires. They 
are so numerous they must be cosmopol- 
itan. They are accustomed to weigh 
propositions. Taken collectively, they 
could not fail at least to try to hold the 



LEGISLATION 141 



scales even, in the weighty matters of our 
organic laws. When their collective 
knowledge and judgment was seen in 
their written opinion, it could but be at 
least fair; and if this written opinion 
were not sound as to interpretation, it 
would be voted down and the proposition 
become binding. They interpose only a 
brake on the hasty or innocent nullify- 
ing of our organic law. 

A proposition is now before the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church for meeting this 
need. The Wilmington Conference, at 
its session, March 26, 1913, passed a 
proposition for amending the constitu- 
tion of the Church. This amendment 
reads : 

The presiding officer of the General Conference 
shall decide questions of order, subject to an ap- 
peal to the General Conference. If the decision 
of the chair be sustained by a majority of those 
present and voting, his decision shall stand. The 
presiding officer of the day or any other general 
superintendent may raise the question of law in 
regard to any proposed legislation. When objec- 
tion has thus been entered, the entire Board of 
General Superintendents shall take the matter 
under advisement and report their decision as 
soon as possible and their reasons for the decision. 



142 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Their report shall be in writing and shall be 
printed in the Journal of the General Conference. 
Any member of the General Conference may raise 
the question of law, and if he be sustained by one 
third of the delegates present and voting, the gen- 
eral superintendent shall be required to submit 
their decision in writing to the General Conference. 
When a decision of the general superintendents 
has been given their decision may be challenged, 
but it shall require two thirds of those present 
and voting to prevail over their decision. 

Mr. Justice T. H. Anderson, of the 
Supreme Court of the District of Colum- 
bia, in advocating some such source of 
safety in the debate in General Confer- 
ence in 1912, exclaimed: "The highest 
duty of the Church, as well as of the 
state, is to safeguard the fundamental 
laws of its existence." In the fever and 
unrest of the hour a citadel of safety 
should be provided for the constitution. 
We can but believe that in the ultimate 
plan which achieves organic union, this 
full and adequate safeguard here sug- 
gested will be provided. 



CHAPTER XIV 
COLORED METHODISTS 
I 

Precisely what shall be the relation 
of colored Methodists to reconstructed 
Methodism? Is it too much to say that 
this is one of the gravest questions upon 
which our fellow Christians in both our 
own and the Southern bodies can pass? 
If it were a question simply of personal 
temperament, of preference, expediency, 
opportunism; if it were local merely; if 
it were for a year, not a few might find a 
quick answer to the question. Many, it 
seems to us, do look at the question from 
one or more of these viewpoints, and 
their answer is already the language of 
the proposed Plan. "We recommend that 
the colored membership of the various 
Methodist bodies be formed into an inde- 
pendent organization holding fraternal 
relations with the reorganized and united 
Church" is the expression of their plat- 
form. They are ready to vote. 

143 



144 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

But — a moment: This matter is not 
incidental merely; it is not an episode; 
it is a formulation and expression of a 
principle that must be applied to color 
and caste questions throughout the 
planet. It is an interpretation of the 
New Testament. We simply must pause 
for one moment, therefore, and consider 
what it is we are doing; then, whatever 
our final action, we will act with our eyes 
open. 

II 

In the earliest ages, when the swarm- 
ing from their hives in the Asiatic steppes 
was going on, our Aryan ancestors made 
their way down the valley of the Indus 
into the plains of Hindustan. There they 
found a race perhaps autochthonous, per- 
haps itself also migrants from some other 
land. It was a negroid race; we called 
them, somewhat loosely, Dravidians. 
The Aryan was of fair complexion, with 
features we here, after millenniums, are 
familiar with. We are bound to say that 
those Aryans did not take with them, 



COLORED METHODISTS 145 



Prince Albert coats nor manicure sets; 
but they did feel a distinction from the 
blackskinned race they found in the hills 
and woods and beside the streams. The 
Aryan had a higher type of religion, not 
wanting in spirituality; the Drayidian 
had incantations and fetishism; he was 
degraded. There came about some mix- 
ture of blood, as is seen in millions to- 
day; but the fairskinned intruder did 
presently draw a line between himself 
and the negroid possessor of the soil. He 
frowned upon a mixture of the races. 
Sweeping our eye over long centuries, 
we see that he frowned upon intermar- 
riage; he then frowned upon social inter- 
mingling, on eating, for example, with 
the negroid neighbor; he then frowned 
upon working by his side ; he then 
frowned upon having anything whatever 
to do with him ; he would not buy or sell ; 
he would not touch him; he refused to 
drink from the same well; he was con- 
taminated even by his shadow. This is 
not the expression of what transpired in 
a single day. It began five thousand 
years ago. The picture is one simply of 



146 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



race prejudice evolving to its logical end. 
Race prejudice gave justification and a 
slogan to the race wars which finally 
drove the Dravidian back into the 
southern table land. To-day he numbers 
not far from fifty-seven millions. 

These race distinctions were not fixed, 
however, nor lawful, until finally by the 
laws of Manu they were indorsed and en- 
joined by religion. Then the great chasm 
was fixed. The Dravidians were out- 
casts. The Hindu created a hundred 
thousand castes, but to the Dravidian 
there was reserved the worst fate — the 
curse of having no caste at all. He was 
beyond all caste — an outcast. 

.What is caste? Or, rather, what is its 
meaning in the matter before us? Caste 
comes not from the word castra, "camp," 
an outcast being simply one altogether 
outside the camp, outside the pales of life 
and hope, though he is there. The word 
comes from a word meaning "color"; it 
means the Dravidian is where he is be- 
cause of his color. And what has caste 
done? It has imposed a blight, a despair, 
a curse, upon three hundred millions of 



COLORED METHODISTS 147 



the three hundred and fifteen millions 
in Hindustan. The remorseless law of 
nature that men and races reap what 
they sow, that curses come home to roost, 
that any discrimination against a lesser 
race pulls down the higher race, has 
through these thousands of years pro- 
duced at length, and for many genera- 
tions, its logical outcome. It is likened 
to the cobra whose venom acts through 
the heart; in sympathy India is dead. 
"Caste is. Hinduism, Hinduism is caste." 
Caste is simply another word for class — 
outcast, a word for hopeless class dis- 
crimination. 

We all know how impossible, from the 
human standpoint, is our work of evan- 
gelism in the presence of caste. Bishop 
McDowell comes back from his study of 
India and reports that not only have we 
not touched it but that we have not even 
touched "the fringe of its shadow." 

Ill 

This matter of excluding by polite and 
diplomatic suggestion the Negro from 



148 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



this reorganized Methodist Church in the 
United States is based on identically the 
ground on which the curse of India rests. 
We exclude him, with polite bouquets 
and fine words, on account of his color. 
No other reason is produced; no other 
reason is possible. He is a Negro. 
That is sufficient to open the outward- 
swinging doors of the temple. We are 
proposing to reorganize the Methodist 
Church in America and put the colored 
membership out because it is colored. 
We are fighting caste (color) in India; 
we are establishing it in the United 
States. 

And we can readily understand that 
if it were a matter of a day, we might, or 
some might — good men and true they are, 
whose character and motives are beyond 
question — vote to politely suggest to the 
Negro to politely withdraw from the fel- 
lowship of white Methodists and "be 
formed into an independent organiza- 
tion." 

But is it for a day? Have we no hope 
and faith that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, or the to-be-created "Methodist 



COLORED METHODISTS 149 



Church," is intended and expected to be a 
permanent institution among the Chris- 
tian forces of the human race? that we 
have in our structure and our genius the 
vitality and economy that can and will 
endure age after age "until He comes"? 
This writer cherishes that dream: that 
Methodism will grow old as Hinduism 
and Roman Catholicism have grown old; 
that there is in our life and organism the 
resident force that makes for longevity, 
and that, through all these coming ages, 
we shall be a source of blessing to man- 
kind. And yet, when we are but a little 
over a century old, when the field of in- 
finite opportunity is before us, we pro- 
pose to imbed in our polity a principle, 
a principle of color, which is the founda- 
tion principle of caste, concerning which 
the eternal God of justice has spoken, as 
he spoke from Gerizim and Ebal, in the 
arrest, the blight, the penalty, we observe 
age after age among the hundreds of 
millions of Hindustan. Whatsoever a 
Church soweth that shall it also reap. It 
is a fearsome responsibility. 

We must beware. Will we one day 



150 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



apply this principle to China and India, 
and refuse membership to yellow or 
brown races there? Where, then, is the 
vision of Peter on the housetop? where 
the proclamation of Paul on Mars' Hill? 
where the great commission of Jesus as 
he left this earth? Does not this rule 
strike the New Testament? 

We would offend no brother who has 
held the other view. But the principle 
of exclusion on which the proposed Plan 
rests, no matter in what honeyed phrases 
it may be masked, is wrong. It is sub- 
versive of our scheme of foreign missions. 
It is an impeachment of the doctrine of 
the brotherhood of man. Pardon : it is a 
wrong. 

IV 

And we may add that, working out 
practically, the principle has failed with 
regard to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South. This Church was separ- 
ated and organized in 1845. At that time 
there w r ere 150,120 negro members, the 
fruits in large measure of the heroic, 



COLORED METHODISTS 151 



humble, unceasing labors of such vast 
types of Christians as Bishop Capers, 
among their own slaves. In 1860 the 
Church South had 207,776 colored mem- 
bers. At the close of the war the Church 
South organized, established, and blessed 
with "fraternal relations" and "inde- 
pendent organization," to quote the lan- 
guage of the proposed Plan, the Colored 
Methodist Episcopal Church. And what 
membership has that Colored Methodist 
Episcopal Church to-day? The numbers 
in 1914 were only 236,071 as against 
207,776 in 1860, fifty years ago. The 
shock of the Civil War, indeed, shook 
from the Church great numbers of her 
colored members, but the least that can 
be said is that the experience of the 
Church South — w T ell intentioned as it is, 
and carried on by men of the highest 
character — in this matter of fostering a 
Church intentionally built on the other 
side of a chasm dug by color, furnishes 
no argument why we should indorse it as 
a definite program of the Methodism of 
this land. It discloses reefs ; it furnishes 
no chart by which to sail. 



152 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



V 

What is the ideal? Where is a plat- 
form whose planks are sound? 

Every race has a right to work out its 
destiny. It has a right to learn, to make 
mistakes, to climb, to build. It must do 
so. A race cannot be carried on velvet 
by others to character or to success. We 
have discovered that in the evolution of 
every belated race. The Indian, the 
whole foreign missionary enterprise, the 
Negro, illustrate the thesis that there 
must be self -education, self -scrutiny, self- 
mastery, self -inspiration, self -building. 
In this the nautilus is the one proper 
symbol, building its ever-enlarging man- 
sion as the seasons roll, leaving its "low- 
vaulted past" for larger rooms, it has 
itself constructed by more spacious 
undertakings and realizations. 

But the truth is not all here. It is at 
most but a half truth. Coupled with self- 
direction and autonomy must be the vital 
help of brotherhood — not brotherliness, 
but brotherhood — a sense, a girdle, of 
organic obligation, the stimulus and the 



COLORED METHODISTS 153 



restraint of what is, in the last analysis, 
a common membership in one great 
family. So far as the colored race is 
concerned, this was illustrated and it 
was realized by the Church South in the 
days of Capers, through the many gen- 
erations of her work among the Negroes 
whereby hundreds of thousands were led 
by her into the Kingdom. 

It is childish to say that what we de- 
fend here is in reality also by inference 
a plea for social equality and for the in- 
termixture of the races, as is carelessly 
bandied about by some foes of our colored 
work in the South. Did it work out so in 
the days of Capers? Has the white race 
less moral stamina than then? The talk 
that antagonizes a plan for working with 
as well as for the colored race on the 
ground that to have them as members 
fosters depravity, is a two-edged sword, 
if we were sarcastic; but we resent the 
imputation then or now as regards any 
organization, North or South. 

VI 

The ideal — an ideal which meets every 



154 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

suggestion of psychology and Christian 
principle — is found in the present organ- 
ization of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. This Church has organized sep- 
arate colored Annual Conferences; the 
colored Conferences have colored district 
superintendents, colored college presi- 
dents, colored secretaries for our great 
boards working among the colored race. 
There is all the race consciousness, all the 
incentive to self-help, all the discipline 
of race experience of "an independent 
organization." But there is more. Back 
of it all and with it all is the deeper con- 
sciousness of a white Christian fellow- 
ship, a white Christian hand clasping 
the dark-skinned hand, a brother stand- 
ing alongside, a fellow burden-bearer, a 
yoke fellow in the identical Church, pull- 
ing also at the selfsame but by no means 
easy load. Is this not the ideal? The 
colored Conferences have absolute auton- 
omy. They have race conventions. They 
would have their race Supervisional Con- 
ferences and bishops. They have now 
representation on the Book Committee, 
on the general committees of the great 



COLOKED METHODISTS 155 



mission boards' work in America and in 
the heathen world. Colored delegates sit 
in the General Conference. Torches are 
lit by all these agencies which are car- 
ried back among their people. 

So far as the Methodist Episcopal 
Church is concerned, one thing remains 
to be done to make the ideal practically 
complete. Whatever happens to this 
prayer for organic union, the twenty 
colored Conferences now of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church should have a 
colored bishop or bishops. In this the 
Church South has set the example when, 
from its own former colored membership, 
two bishops were ordained by Bishops 
Paine and McTyeire in Jackson, Ten- 
nessee. 

VII 

The proposed Plan adopted by the 
Joint Commission on Federation con- 
templates all that we have here set forth. 
That plan provides for one colored Quad- 
rennial Conference. True, the Plan as 
revised and sent to the Methodist Epis- 



156 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



copal Church by the Church South cuts 
out the fourth Quadrennial Conferences ; 
but it is not a demand, an ultimatum. We 
understand that the plan as originally 
agreed to by the joint commissioners, 
including those of the Church South, 
would not be unsatisfactory to multi- 
tudes of the best types of Southern men. 
We can apply the principle in the super- 
visional Conference ideal. 

The principle implied in the Plan orig- 
inally adopted by the Joint Commission 
on Federation should stand. It is not 
revolutionary. It cannot be offensive to 
any Christian. The principle is attained 
in the supervisional Conference. It gives 
the colored race the fullest autonomy, the 
amplest chance ; it incites the race to the 
highest ideal, the most patient endeavor, 
the deepest Christian character, because, 
like the work of Capers and of Calvary, it 
brushes aside caste as unworthy and, as 
Capers set the example, it invites Chris- 
tians to go forward hand in hand. 



CHAPTER XV 



THE NAME 
I 

The Joint Commission on Federation 
adopted this tentative recommendation 
as to the name for the "new Church"; 
"We suggest, as a plan of reorganization, 
the merging of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, the Methodist Protestant 
Church, and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, into one Church, to be 
known as the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in America or the Methodist 
Church in America." 

The General Conference of the Church, 
South, adopted this: "The representa- 
tives of this church are hereby instructed 
to say to the Joint Commission on Uni- 
fication that the name preferred for the 
reorganized and united church is the 
Methodist Church in America." 

157 



158 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



Probably no one would allow the 
matter of a name to hold Methodism 
back from consummating organic union. 
There are, however, some considerations 
which make the matter of name serious. 

Thomas Ware, who was present at the 
Christmas Conference in 1784, when the 
Church came into being, in writing of 
that Conference, says: "The order of 
things devised by him [Wesley] for our 
organization fills us with solemn delight. 
. . . We did, therefore, according to 
the best of our knowledge, receive and 
follow the advice of Mr. Wesley, as stated 
in our Form of Discipline. After Mr. 
Wesley's letter appointing Dr. Coke and 
Mr. Asbury joint superintendents over 
the Methodists of America had been read, 
analyzed, and cordially approved by the 
Conference, a question arose what name 
we should like. I thought to myself and 
was content that we should call ourselves 
the Methodist Church, and so whispered 
to a brother that sat near me. But one 
proposed, I think it was John Dickins, 
that we should call ourselves the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church. . . . All being 



THE NAME 159 



agreed that the plan of general superin- 
tendency was a species of episcopacy, 
the motion was carried without, I think, 
a dissenting voice. There was not, to the 
best of my recollection, the least agita- 
tion on this question. Had the Confer- 
ence indulged the least suspicion that the 
name they were about to take would in 
the least degree cross the views or feel- 
ings of Mr. Wesley, it would have been 
abandoned; for the name ' Wesley' was 
inexpressibly dear to the Christmas Con- 
ference, and to none more so than to As- 
bury and Coke." 

In a letter of another date Ware de- 
clares that "Dr. Coke was in favor of 
taking the name 'Methodist Episcopal 
Church/ " It is not at all improbable 
that it was after full consultation with 
Dr. Coke and Francis Asbury that John 
Dickins took the floor and proposed the 
name. 

The first "Minutes" issued after the 
Christmas Conference [that is, in 1785] 
contains a letter from John Wesley in 
which he designates Dr. Coke and Mr. 
Francis Asbury to be joint superinten- 



ICO "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



dents; a footnote on this word which is 
printed in italics makes this comment: 
"As the translators of our version of the 
Bible have used the word 'bishop' instead 
of 'superintendent/ it has been thought 
by us that it would appear more scrip- 
tural to adopt their term 'bishop/ " The 
letter of Wesley is followed immediately 
by this: "Therefore, at this Conference, 
we formed ourselves into an independent 
Church; and, following the counsel of 
Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the 
Episcopal mode of government, we 
thought it best to become an Episcopal 
Church." John Wesley was named as a 
"bishop" of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

It may not appeal to some that the 
name of the greatest Protestant family 
in this hemisphere, a family containing 
nearly one half the members of all Pro- 
estant Churches in this land, should have 
its roots in the fact of its origin ; indeed, 
that the name should touch the venerable 
name of John Wesley himself. We con- 
fess it does carry weight with us. It 
speaks of so many things : of a time when 



THE NAME 



161 



there was but one Methodist movement 
in this land, of the fact that with scarcely 
an exception the great bodies which com- 
pose the Methodist family in this hemi- 
sphere have in their names the words 
"Methodist Episcopal." It would seem 
that weighty reasons should be advanced 
before changing the name that links the 
Methodist movement with its beginnings 
and its founder. It would be ungrateful 
and it would seem unwise to take on a 
new name, as if Methodism were a crea- 
ture only of to-day. There is a name that 
Methodism had when as yet in this land 
she was one and undivided. That, it 
would seem, is the proper standard of 
unity which should fly to the winds of 
heaven to-day and to-morrow until the 
end of time. 

II 

Another argument lies in the conten- 
tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South — that she is as much a part of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church as is the 
denomination that bears that title. Says 



162 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 

McTyeire in his history : "The term 
[Methodist Episcopal Church] is used 
not as designating the original Church 
of that name, for such it is not, but the 
portion of the Church not included in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
Each in its sphere is the 'Old Church.' " 
The Cape May commissioners from 
both Churches, meeting in August, 1876, 
adopted without a dissenting voice a 
Declaration and Basis of Fraternity, as 
follows: "Status of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church and of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, and their coordi- 
nate relations as legitimate branches of 
Methodism : each of said churches is a 
legitimate branch of Episcopal Method- 
ism in the United States, having a com- 
mon origin in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church organized in 1784." Pursuing 
that study, what sufficient reasoning can 
we advance why the common name dat- 
ing from the common origin, should not 
be the name of united Methodism? 

Ill 

But may not the question be raised, Is 



THE NAME 



163 



not the name suggested by the Joint Com- 
mission also inapplicable? That name is 
"the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
America." This is not the original 
name. Is it not, moreover, a misnomer 
and will it not be an obstacle in days to 
come? 

Consider: the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, know no such boundaries 
as in America. The lawmakers who in 
General Conference sit side by side, vote 
on all constitutional questions, elect the 
general superintendents and all the gen- 
eral officers of the denominations, come 
from the ends of the earth. "The world is 
our parish." The Methodist Episcopal 
Church has Annual Conferences in east- 
ern and southern Asia, in South Amer- 
ica, in Africa, and ten Annual Confer- 
ences or Missions in Europe. The 
northernmost town on the planet and 
likewise the southernmost, have each a 
Mtethodist Episcopal congregation. It is 
a universal Church, obedient to the com- 
mand, "Go ye into all the world." The 
sessions of a General Conference are the 



164 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



most truly ecumenical gathering known. 
Whatsoever changes the future may dis- 
close in the matter of representation, the 
Church should remain universal. Her 
general superintendents will at the same 
moment be bishops in New York and 
Peking and Petrograd. Inasmuch as the 
reorganization of Methodism does not 
contemplate cutting the roots which 
reach to China and South America and 
Africa and Europe, let not the process of 
reorganization tie a millstone to the neck 
of the foreign missionary enterprise, or, 
by its palpable influence, create a dis- 
trust in the breasts of brethren in Asiatic 
or European lands, that the Church is 
only an American Church, an Occidental 
Church, incapable of comprehending 
ethnic traits or aspirations, incapable of 
catholicity in sympathy and understand- 
ing. Is it not a species of Judaism to add 
the words "in America" to the historic 
name of Methodism? Let us have a name 
suggesting universality, the ability to 
comprehend ethnic traits and aspira- 
tions, the capacity to do our work with 
the largest sympathy and understanding. 



CHAPTER XVI 



A PLAN FOR ORGANIC UNION 

Summarizing now the findings of this 
series of studies, we may formulate them 
in a plan for the unification of Method- 
ism. In order to make the conclusions of 
this book obvious we will print the Plan 
sent by the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, and the plan arrived at in these 
studies, in parallel columns. 

For the Unification of Methodism 



1. We suggest, as a 
plan of reorganization, 
the merging of the 
Methodist Episcopal 
Church, the Methodist 
Protestant Church, the 
Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, into one 
Church, to be known as 
the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in America or 
the Methodist Church 
in America. 

2. We suggest that 
this Church shall have 



1. We suggest as a 
plan of reorganization, 
the merging of the 
Methodist Episcopal 
Church, the Methodist 
Protestant Church, the 
Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, into one 
Church, to be known as 
the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 



2. We suggest that 
this Church shall have 



165 



166 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



throughout common Ar- 
ticles of Faith, common 
conditions of member- 
ship, a common hymnal, 
a common catechism, 
and a common ritual. 

3. We suggest that the 
governing power of the 
reorganized Church 
shall be vested in one 
General Conference and 
three or four Quadren- 
nial Conferences, both 
General and Quadren- 
nial Conferences to ex- 
ercise their powers un- 
der constitutional pro- 
visions and restrictions, 
the General Conference 
to have full legislative 
power over all matters 
distinctly connectional, 
and the Quadrennial 
Conferences to have full 
legislative power over 
distinctively local af- 
fairs. We suggest that 
the colored membership 
of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, the Meth- 
odist Protestant Church, 
and such organizations 
of colored Methodists as 
may enter into agree- 
ment with them, may be 
constituted and reor- 
ganized as one of the 
Quadrennial or Juris- 
dictional Conferences of 
the proposed reorgani- 
zation. 

4. We suggest that the 
General Conference 
shall consist of two 



throughout common Ar- 
ticles of Faith, common 
conditions of member- 
ship, a common hymnal, 
a common catechism, 
and a common ritual. 

3. We suggest that the 
governing power of the 
reorganized Church 
shall be vested in a Gen- 
eral Conference. 



4. We suggest that the 
G e n e r a 1 Conference 
shall consist of two di- 



ORGANIC UNION 167 



houses, each house to 
be composed of equal 
numbers of ministerial 
and lay delegates. The 
delegates in the first 
house shall be appor- 
tioned equally among 
the Quadrennial Confer- 
ences and elected under 
equitable rules to be 
provided therefor. The 
ministerial delegates in 
the second house shall 
be elected by the minis- 
terial members in the 
Annual Conferences and 
the lay delegates by the 
laity within the Annual 
Conferences, under 
equitable rules to be 
provided therefor. Each 
Annual Conference shall 
have at least one minis- 
terial and one lay dele- 
gate. The larger Con- 
ferences shall have one 
additional ministerial 
and one additional lay 

delegate for every 

ministerial members of 
the Conference; also an 
additional ministerial 
and lay delegates where 
there is an excess of 
two thirds of the fixed 
rate of representation. 
All legislation of the 
General Conference 
shall require the con- 
current action of the 
two houses. 



visions, each division to 
be composed of equal 
numbers of ministerial 
and lay delegates. The 
delegates in the first di- 
vision shall be appor- 
tioned equally among 
the Supervisional Con- 
ferences and elected un- 
der equitable rules to 
be provided therefor. 
The ministerial dele- 
gates in the second di- 
vision shall be elected 
by the ministerial mem- 
bers in the Annual Con- 
ferences, and the lay 
delegates by the laity 
within the Annual Con- 
ferences, under equit- 
able rules to be pro- 
vided therefor. Each 
Annual Conference shall 
have at least one minis- 
terial and one lay dele- 
gate. The larger Con- 
ferences shall have one 
additional ministerial 
and one additional lay 

delegate for every 

ministerial members of 
the Conference, also an 
additional ministerial 
and lay delegate where 
there is an excess of 
two thirds of the fixed 
rate of representation. 
All legislation of the 
General Conference 
shall, if requested (by 
the same powers as 
now obtain in securing 
a Vote by Orders) re- 
quire the concurrent ac- 



168 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE'' 



5. We suggest that the 
Quadrennial Confer- 
ences shall be composed 
of an equal number of 
ministerial and lay del- 
egates, to be chosen by 
the Annual Conferences 
within their several jur- 
isdictions, according to 
an equitable plan to be 
provided for. 

6. We suggest that the 
Quadrennial Confer- 
ences shall fix the boun- 
daries of the Annual 
Conferences within 
their respective juris- 
dictions, and that the 
Annual Conferences 
shall be composed of all 
traveling preachers in 
full connection there- 
with and one lay repre- 
sentative from each pas- 
toral charge. 

7. We suggest that the 
Quadrennial Confer- 
ences shall name the 
bishops from their sev- 
eral jurisdictions, the 
same to be confirmed by 
the first house of the 
General Conference. 

8. We suggest that 
neither the General Con- 
ference nor any of the 
Quadrennial Confer- 
ences be invested with 
final authority to inter- 
pret the constitution- 
ality of its own actions. 



tion of the two divi- 
sions. 

5. We suggest that the 
Supervisional Confer- 
ences shall be composed 
of an equal number of 
ministerial and lay del- 
egates, to be chosen by 
the Annual Conferences 
within their respective 
jurisdictions, according 
to an equitable plan to 
be provided for. 

6. We suggest that the 
Supervisional Confer- 
ences shall fix the boun- 
daries of the Annual 
Conferences within 
their respective juris- 
dictions, and that the 
Annual Conferences 
shall be composed of all 
traveling preachers in 
full connection there- 
with and one lay repre- 
sentative from each pas- 
toral charge. 



8. We suggest that the 
General Conference 
shall not be invested 
with final authority to 
interpret the constitu- 
tionality of its own ac- 
tions. 



ORGANIC UNION 



169 



"These things spake Jesus; and lifting 
up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, 
the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that 
thy Son may glorify thee . . . And now, 
Father, glorify thou me with thine own 
self with the glory which I had with thee 
before the world was. I manifested thy 
name unto the men whom thou gavest 
me out of the world. ... I pray for 
them: I pray not for the world, but for 
those whom thou hast given me ; for they 
are thine : and all things that are mine are 
thine, and thine are mine : and I am glori- 
fied in them. Sanctify them in the truth : 
thy word is truth. As thou didst send 
me into the world, even so send I them 
into the world. . . . Neither for these 
only do I pray, but for them also that 
believe on me through their word; that 
they may all be one ; even as thou, Father, 
art in me, and I in thee, that they also 
may be in us : that the world may believe 
that thou didst send me. And the glory 
which thou hast given me I have given 
unto them ; that they may be one, even as 
we are one; I in them, and thou in me, 
that they may be perfected into one ; that 



170 "THAT THEY MAY BE ONE" 



the world may know that thou didst send 
me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst 
me." 



May this prayer of our only Lord and 
Saviour be answered in the sincere, full, 
and final union of American Methodism, 
that the world may see and seeing believe. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



017 666 814 3 



